
*w. 






Hpfcji 



a* i 



r«< 



THE 



INCAPABLE OF DEFENCE, 



AND THE 



TRUE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL TRANSLATION 
VINDICATED : 



IN ANSWER TO 



PROFESSOR LEE'S "REMARKS 



DR. HENDERSON'S APPEAL 

TO 

THE BIBLE SOCIETY, 

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE 

TURKISH VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 
PRINTED AT PARIS IN 1819." 



BY THE 

AUTHOR OF THE APPEAL. 



'YITOTYIIQSIN EXE 'YHAINONTQN AOrQN. 2 Tim. i. 13. 

NON TALI AUXILIO, NEC DEFENSORIBUS ISTIS 

TEMPUS EGET. Virgil. 



LONDON: 

PRINTED FOR C. AND J. RIVINGTON, 

st. paul's church-yard, Waterloo-place, and 148, strand. 



MDCCCXXV, 






LONDON: 

PRINTED BY R. GILBERT, 

ST. JOHN'S SQUARE. 



TO THE READER. 



Lest it should be supposed from the length of 
time which has elapsed since the appearance of 
Professor Lee's Remarks, that the author of the 
following reply has experienced some serious 
difficulties in meeting the arguments contained 
in that pamphlet, he considers it due, injustice 
to himself and his cause, to apprize the reader, 
that his MS. was forwarded from Russia a few 
days after the date affixed to the Preface ; but, 
owing to circumstances over which he had no 
control, its publication has been delayed till 
now. 



BRIGHTON, 

Sept, 19, 1825. 



a2 



PREFACE, 



That the Committee of the British and Foreign 
Bible Society had been grossly imposed upon 
in regard to Ali Bey's Turkish Version of the 
New Testament, was evident to my mind soon 
after I commenced the perusal of it ; but I 
certainly had not the most distant conception 
that their adoption of it was so unqualified and 
irrevocable, as to induce them to resist an honest 
and direct attempt to place in a proper light the 
egregious errors and inconsistencies with which 
that volume abounds. Such, however, was 
found to be the case; and neither the remon- 
strances which were made in private, nor a 
public act of separation from the Society, pro- 
duced any efficient change in the measures 
resorted to for proceeding in the distribution 



vi PREFACE. 

of the copies. Under these circumstances, I 
conceived it to be my duty, as a last effort to 
arrest the progress of corruption, and provoke a 
keen and unslumbering jealousy over such ver- 
sions as might be recommended to the Society, 
to publish an Appeal to the Members of that 
Institution, in which, besides inserting the re- 
marks originally submitted to the Committee, 
I made several additional disclosures on the 
subject of the work, and endeavoured to bring 
the whole before the public in such a manner 
as to satisfy every candid mind, that it is alto- 
gether unworthy of those who published it, and 
who were afterwards advised to persist in circu- 
lating it among Mohammedan unbelievers. 

Considering the strong feeling which existed 
against the individual who had thus dared to 
impugn the Turkish version, and the marked 
determination that had been manifested to sup- 
port its character, it was impossible not to ex- 
pect that some public notice would be taken of 
the Appeal by which its errors were exposed, 
and that some attempt would be made to in- 
validate the arguments contained in it; but, I 
must confess, I had no anticipation that I was 

13 



PREFACE. vii 

to be attacked by the Arabic Professor at Cam- 
bridge, at the head of a regularly marshalled 
army of " learned Orientalists," part of which, 
according to the Eclectic Reviewer *, consisted 
of a phalanx of no less note than " the whole 
Asiatic Society of Paris." When first apprized 
of the fact, that so formidable a body was bear- 
ing down upon me, it was natural enough to be 
conscious of some momentary feelings of alarm ; 
but I no sooner obtained a view of its real 
strength, and the nature and disposition of its 
operations, than I perceived, that whatever 
abilities the different champions might indivi- 
dually possess, and however formidable it might 
be to meet them in any other field, they were, 
on the present occasion, enlisted in a combat 
for which they had not been previously disci- 
plined, and that there was, therefore, no serious 
cause of apprehension respecting the result, 

With the critical theories of Professor Lee, 
the public were previously acquainted ; his re- 
marks on my Appeal disclose to us the opinions 
which he holds on the subject of Biblical trans- 

* June 1824, p. 536. 



viii PREFACE. 

lation, many of them novel, and most of them 
having a direct tendency to cast the Word of 
God " in a mould accommodated to individual 
fancy and conceit/' than which nothing is more 
to be deprecated by all who feel a solicitude to 
preserve that word pure and incorrupt, and 
transmit it to our fellow-men in possession of as 
much of its native garb and energy, as the di- 
versity of languages will possibly allow. Indeed, 
so completely are the principles advanced in the 
Remarks at variance with sound Biblical criti- 
cism, enlightened Christian taste, and the prac- 
tice of the best translators in every age, that 
were it not for the glare of Oriental learning by 
which they are surrounded, I might safely have 
left them to be confronted with the naked and 
unsupported statements contained in the Appeal, 
in order to produce a satisfactory conviction in 
the mind of the reader, that they are equally 
insufficient to exculpate the particular version 
in question, as they are perfectly inadmissible 
in regard to any other translation of the Holy 
Scriptures. That the Author should have risked 
his reputation as a scholar, a theologian, and 
a critic, by the use of such arguments as have 
been selected in defence of Ali Bey, is really 



PREFACE. IX 

incomprehensible : that the futility and inepti- 
tude of these arguments should be detected, 
and the dangerous consequences pointed out, 
which are likely to result from an adoption of 
the Professor's principles by Biblical translators, 
or a blind deference to his advice on the part 
of those who are engaged in publishing new 
versions of the Scriptures, is a duty imperiously 
binding on those whose talents and responsibi- 
lities call them to the task. If any hints, con- 
tained in the following pages, should be the 
means of exciting greater attention to the sub- 
ject, and lead to an able discussion of its dif- 
ferent parts, by those who are thoroughly versed 
in Biblical criticism and interpretation, I shall 
consider one of their principal ends as gained ; 
whatever may be the result in regard to the 
Paris edition of the Turkish Testament, or what- 
ever opinion may be formed of my concern in 
the affair. 

Towards the Author of the Remarks, per- 
sonally, I am not conscious of entertaining any 
feelings of an unfriendly or unchristian nature. 
If I have made a liberal use of his name, it was 
because I could not avoid it; and even the words 



X PREFACE. 

" opponent" and " antagonist" (I do not recol- 
lect that I have used " adversary") which some- 
times occur, are employed merely to vary the 
mode of expression, not to indicate any thing 
like a feeling of rancour or spleen. In the dis- 
cussion, however, of questions like the present, 
it is of inferior consideration what may be 
thought of our individual attitude towards one 
another. In the course of a few years at most, 
we shall both have gone to give in our account 
to the Searcher of hearts, and Author of that 
Book to which the controversy has respect ; but 
the effects of this controversy in its influence on 
new versions, or the revision of old ones, will, I 
am persuaded, continue to operate, either in 
guarding the sacred diction of Scripture from 
desecration, or in surrendering it to the plastic 
hand of fancy and error, to the obscuration of 
Divine truth, and the beguilement of the pre- 
cious and immortal souls of men. 

I sincerely regret that my answer has been 
swelled to such an immoderate length, and that 
I should have been under the necessity of in- 
commoding the reader by the frequent introduc- 
tion of Oriental words ; but the former has been 



PREFACE. XI 

occasioned by the detail into which Professor 
Lee has gone in his Remarks, and the latter has 
unavoidably arisen out of the nature of the sub- 
ject. 

As the passage in Ali Bey's version in which 
the Lamb solemnly interdicts his own worship 
(Rev. xxii. 8, 9.) has been cancelled, and no 
attempt has been made in its vindication, it was 
considered unnecessary to say more respecting 
an error of such alarming magnitude. I may 
here be permitted, however, to observe, in reply 
to Professor Lee's pointed query, Whether I 
was or was not in possession of the fact of its 
cancelment at the time I published my Appeal ? 
that I certainly was acquainted with it ; but he 
cannot be ignorant, that the document which 
disclosed the error, was written as far back as 
the month of March, 1820, and he has shewn 
no good cause why I should have suppressed 
this part of the document when inserting it in 
the Appeal, especially as I there * explicitly 
refer to the cancelling of the sheet, as the only 
step which the Committee then deemed neces- 
sary in purification of the edition. 

* Pases 50, 51. 



Xll PREFACE. 

With regard to the culpability with which I 
am charged by the Professor for not making 
enquiries relative to the errata, or the further 
fate of Ali's version, I can only say, that I 
never met with any great encouragement to in- 
stitute them. The public are informed, indeed, 
by a Gentleman who appears not to be altoge- 
ther unacquainted with the arcana of the busi- 
ness, that " the cancels and errata were fully 
agreed upon at a meeting of the Sub Commit- 
tee held Sept. 9 5 1822 ; and they were then 
forwarded to Dr. Henderson * ;" but I can assure 
him, that no such documents ever reached me ; 
and, if it had not been that my worthy col- 
league, Dr. Paterson, was furnished with a copy 
of said errata and cancels on his visit to Paris in 
the spring of last year, I might have remained 
till this moment perfectly ignorant of their na- 
ture and extent. 

It is also stated in the list of Committee 
Meetings, inserted in Professor Lee's Appendix, 
that it was resolved by the Committee, Jan. 20, 
1823, that " copies" of " the cancel leaves and 
Table of Errata/' " be sent to places whither 

# Eclectic Review, ut sup. p. 533, 



PREFACE. xiii 

Turkish Testaments have been forwarded/" 
Whether this resolution has been conscienti- 
ously carried into effect with regard to other 
places, I have not the opportunity of knowing ; 
but so much is certain, that no such cancels or 
Tables of Errata have ever been sent to Russia, 
nor have any steps been taken to liberate the 
copies of Ali Bey's New Testament which have 
been put under arrest in this country. 

With respect to the Table of Errata itself, 
which, we are informed, consisted originally of 
219 faults, but was reduced, at the instance of 
Professor Lee and others, to the moderate num- 
ber of 49, I can only observe, that I have seen 
no reason to alter my opinion as stated in the 
Appeal (p. 57), that it must " amount, if any 
thing like justice be done to the text, to nearly 
a third part of the volume/' What I mean by 
doing justice to the text, is, to use the words of 
the Committee in that part of their resolution of 
Aug. 9, 1821, which relates to the Old Testa- 
ment, to "purify it of every thing extraneous 
or supplementary, as far as the genius of the 
Turkish language will admit." Until this be 
done, I must sustain my charge, that " there 



xiv PREFACE. 

IS NOT A PAGE, NOR SCARCELY A VERSE IN 
THE VOLUME THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN 
SOMETHING OR OTHER OF AN OBJECTION- 
ABLE NATURE." 

I now leave it with the candid reader, after 
perusing the following pages?, to say whether 
there be not serious cause for apprehension, that, 
if such versions or editions are sanctioned by 
the Bible Society, a just handle will be given 
to those who are hostile to the circulation of 
the Scriptures in the vulgar tongues, to renew 
the language of the Rhemish translators : " To 
say nothing of their intolerable liberty and 
licence to change the accustomed callings of 
God, angels, men, places, and things, used by 
the Apostles, and all antiquity in Greek, Latin, 
^and all other languages of Christian nations, 
into new names, sometimes falsely, and always 
ridiculously : to Jit and frame the phrase of 
Holy Scripture after the forme of prophane 
writers, sticking not for the same, to supply, 
adde, alter, or diminish, as freely as if they 
translated Livy, Virgil, or Terence. Having 
no religious respect to keep either the majesty, 
or sincere simplicity of that venerable style of 



PREFACE. XV 

Christ's Spirit, as S. Augustine speaketh; which 
kind the Holy Spirit did chuse of infinite wis- 
dom, to have the divine mysteries rather uttered 
in, than any other more delicate, much less in 
this meretricious manner of writing/' 



E. H. 



ST. PETERSBURG!*, 
Sept. 24, 1824. 



THE 



TURKISH TESTAMENT 

INCAPABLE OF DEFENCE. 



CHAPTER I. 

Bearing of the Controversy on modern Versions of the Scrip- 
tures. Classification of Versions. The Verbal condemned. 
Karaite Tatar Manuscript. Importance of literal Versions. 
Character of Castalio's Translation. The Authority of 
Jerome and Dathe improperly alleged by Professor Lee. 
The Design of Dathe? 's Version. Specimen of its Manner. 
Question not to be decided by the Practice of liberal 
Translators. 

In publishing my Appeal on the subject of the 
Turkish Scriptures, I had a twofold object in 
view : first, the suppression of an edition of the 
New Testament which I conceived to contain a 
representation of that invaluable portion of Divine 
Truth equally unworthy of its high and sacred 
character, and of the Society whose Committee 
had been advised to publish it; and, secondly, 
the excitement of public attention to the subject 

B 



of Biblical translations in general, the importance 
of their being conducted on properly matured 
principles, and the necessity of submitting such 
versions to a severe and thorough scrutiny as are 
adopted for circulation among those who have 
hitherto been destitute of the sacred oracles. 

Whatever may be the result as to the former of 
these points, — whether the remaining copies of 
the Paris edition of Ali Bey's Turkish New Tes- 
tament will still be put into the hands of the 
Infidels, or, whether the good sense, the correct 
taste, and the Christian principle of British 
divines, and a numerous body of British Chris- 
tians, will prove superior to the influence of a 
vague and superficial opinion obtained from gen- 
tlemen, skilled indeed in the Oriental languages, 
but who, there is reason to believe, are little 
habituated to the study of the Bible : — still, the 
less ostensible, but more important object will, I 
doubt not, be attained ; and should this anticipa- 
tion be realized, the circumstance will prove a 
source of satisfaction to my mind, far outweigh- 
ing the trouble occasioned by the controversy; 
or the odium attempted to be thrown on my 
character by those who may have espoused the 
more popular, but totally untenable side of the 
question. 

It was therefore with much pleasure that I 
found Professor Lee had allotted a considerable 
13 



part of the first chapter of his Remarks to the 
investigation of just principles of translation ; and, 
as the subject is confessedly of essential moment, 
especially in the present day, when so many new 
versions of the Bible are preparing, I hope I may 
claim the indulgence of the reader while I devote 
a few pages to it, in order more determinately to 
fix the real state of the question to be discussed 
in the following chapters, and furnish some ad- 
ditional hints to those who are engaged in the 
work of translation, or who may be charged with 
the highly responsible office of judging what ver- 
sions are proper to be adopted for general circu- 
lation. 

In the Remarks originally submitted to the 
Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society, and afterwards embodied in the Appeal, 
I observed, that " the numerous translations of 
the Holy Scriptures which exist both in ancient 
and modern languages, have generally been di- 
vided into two kinds : such as are literal and 
closely adhere to the text ; and the free or liberal, 
in which greater attention is paid to elegance of 
style, than to an exact representation of the 
original *." The accuracy of this statement is 
questioned by Professor Lee f ; yet, instead of 
fairly meeting the argument, he proceeds to shift 

* Appeal, p. 15. f Remarks, p. 8. 

B 2 



it, and involves the whole subject in obscurity, 
by confounding the very obvious distinction be- 
tween a literal and a servile or merely verbal trans- 
lation. In classifying the generality of Biblical 
versions, it never once entered my mind to advert 
to those which are of so servile a character as to 
consist merely of words inflexibly corresponding 
in number, and the order of their arrangement, to 
the words of the original. Such barbarous, pre- 
posterous, and contemptible metaphrases, alto- 
gether unworthy of any but a school-boy of the 
lowest class, can never, without a dereliction of 
every sound principle of association, be compre- 
hended under the name of literal translations. 
Of this kind of absurd and distorted representa- 
tions of the original, we possess abundant speci- 
mens in Aquila, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Latin 
version of Sanctes Pagninus, and that of his im- 
prover in the art, Arias Montanus. 

That the Committee of the Bible Society has 
not published one of the most complete and cu- 
rious specimens of the servile that ever emanated 
from the Synagogue, at all times famous for 
monstrous forms, is, I believe, chiefly owing to 
the same influence, which has been, and still is 
exerted, to prevent, if possible, the circulation of 
the Turkish New Testament. The production I 
refer to, is the Karaite Tatar manuscript, of which 
mention has repeatedly been made in the Reports 



of the Society. In this work, not only is the same 
order of the words retained which exists in the 
original, but every idiom and grammatical form ; 
and every particle of the Hebrew language is so 
rigidly expressed, that, with little trouble, the 
whole might be rendered back again into He- 
brew, so as to furnish an exact copy of the ex- 
emplar from which it was made. Indeed, its 
servility is such, that, besides now and then sug- 
gesting a proper word to a Tatar translator, it is 
of no practical use whatever; the Tatar and 
Hebrew languages differing so entirely in their 
structure and conformation: and, it can only be 
considered as valuable in a critical point of view, 
as exhibiting the readings of the Hebrew ma- 
nuscript from which it was derived, and as deve- 
loping the principles of interpretation obtaining 
in the Karaite school at the period of its compo- 
sition. 

The fact, however, that I did not include ver- 
sions of this description in the former class of my 
division, is admitted by Professor Lee*, who 
quotes a passage from the Appeal, to prove, that 
my opinion on the subject of translation, coincides 
with that of Jerome, Dathe, and himself. It is as 
follows : " While, on the one hand, a translator 
of the Scriptures is studiously to avoid such a 

* Remarks, p. 14. 



scrupulous adherence to the letter as would do 
violence to the genius of the language into which 
his version is made, and necessarily render the 
version harsh, obscure, or unintelligible ; he is, 
on the other hand, equally to guard against the 
adoption of any words, phrases, or modes of con- 
struction, that would, in any way, injure the 
spirit and manner of the original, or convey one 
shade of meaning, more or less, than what it was 
designed to express*." It is nevertheless evident 
from this, as well as other parts of the Remarks, 
that, much as we may be agreed in rejecting the 
verbal mode of translation, we are completely at 
variance with respect to the real character of the 
literal, as well as to the class of translators whose 
method ought to be recommended for adoption in 
all popular versions of the Scriptures ; for while 
the learned Professor joins issue with the free or 
liberal translator who does not consider himself 
to be tied down to the peculiar phraseology of 
the Bible, but is at liberty so to change and 
accommodate it as shall best suit the received 
forms of expression existing among the people 
for whose use he is preparing his version, I main- 
tain, that those translations only are entitled to 
the character of good and faithful, which not 
merely convey the precise ideas contained in the 

* Appeal, p. 16, 



original, but give them in language as nearly 
assimilated to that in which it was written, as the 
natural and grammatical idioms of the new dialect 
will allow. He avers, indeed, that " as far as his 
enquiries have gone, he knows of no instance, in 
which that class of translators" of which he ap- 
proves, " has professedly paid a greater attention 
to the elegance of style than to an exact repre- 
sentation of the precise force of the original * ;" 
and in this statement, I believe, he is not far 
from the truth. But the reader will perceive 
that the ground of the argument is here com- 
pletely changed; the point of debate not being 
<( an exact representation of the precise force ," but 
an exact representation of the precise manner of 
the original, as far as the idioms of the vernacular 
language will admit. The moment we concede 
to a translator the licence of merely giving what 
he may conceive to be the force of his author's 
expressions, and not the identical expressions 
themselves, to the utmost extent of the rules 
imposed upon him by a just system of philology, 
we surrender the sacred dictates of the Spirit to 
the whims of human caprice, and open the flood- 
gates of imposition and error. Hence the wisdom 
of that saying of Augustine: "we must speak 
according to a set rule, lest licence of words 

* Remarks, p, 8. 



8 

should generate some wicked opinion concerning 
the things contained under the words *." 

As I had adduced Castalio as an example of 
the class I condemned, on account of their sacri- 
ficing fidelity to elegance, Professor Lee gives us 
in a note f, a declaration made by that author in 
the dedication of his work to Edward the Sixth, 
in which he states fidelity to be one of the prin- 
cipal ends he had in view in preparing his trans- 
lation ; but it must be obvious to every one who 
is at all acquainted with the subject, that he only 
means fidelity in regard to the general bearing 
and sense, but not to the manner of the original. 
It is maintained by an able Scripture critic ;£, 
that it was confessedly, in a high degree, Cas- 
talio's object in translating, to express with ele- 
gance and in an oratorical manner, the sense of 
the text. And if this was the case, how unwilling 
soever we may be to accuse him of infidelity in 
representing the meaning, it is impossible to ab- 

* De Civit. Dei, Lib. X. Cap. 12. It was in reference to the 
abandonment of the Scripture phraseology, . and the adoption of 
native modes of expression, that Gilbert Wakefield says ; " I have 
followed my inclination here in anglicising the peculiar phrase- 
ology of the original, and would gladly have followed it on many 
other occasions, if prejudices could have borne it." Notes on 
Philemon. 

f Page 9. 

% Campbell on the Gospels, Dissert. X. Part iv. §. 2. 



solve him from the eharge of unfaithfully repre- 
senting the manner of the original. In a just 
exhibition of the character of the sacred writer's 
style, he not only failed entirely, but even inten- 
tionally; it being his professed design, to meet 
the literary prejudices of those whose classical 
taste was shocked by the Latinity of the Vulgate, 
but who, it was supposed, might be tempted to 
peruse the sacred volume, if put into their hands 
in a beautiful and ornamented dialect. Of the 
relevancy of these remarks to the version of Ali 
Bey, evidence, which the Professor has not been 
able to invalidate, has been furnished in the 
Appeal, and will receive still further corrobora- 
tion in the course of the following chapters. 

In producing the authority of Jerome relative 
to the best manner of translation, my opponent 
should not have omitted to notice, that the letter 
to Pammachius, containing the sentiments of that 
Father on the subject, was written in the heat of 
controversy, at a time when his mind was ruffled 
by the accusations of Ruffinus, and cannot, there- 
fore, be regarded as furnishing us with the cool 
and deliberate views of this learned man, on a 
subject with which he had rendered himself fa- 
miliar, in a degree unequalled by any of the other 
Fathers. The circumstances of the case are these : 
certain letters from the Pope Epiphanius to John, 
Bishop of Jerusalem,! having come into the hands 



10 

of Eusebius of Cremona, this monk, not under- 
standing the language in which they were written, 
requested Jerome to furnish him with a transla- 
tion of them. This task the Father performed in 
his usual hurried manner, " Accitoque notario, 
raptim celeriterque dictavi," not regarding the 
manner or style in which he made the translation, 
but merely executing it in such a manner as he 
thought sufficient to give Eusebius an idea of the 
contents of the original letters. It so happening, 
however, that Jerome's translation, which had 
been intended only to meet the eye of a private 
friend, came abroad ; and, having found its way 
into the hands of his adversaries, a great handle 
was made of the manner of its execution. To 
justify himself from the aspersions thus thrown 
on his character, he wrote the epistle above 
referred to, De optimo genere interpret andi , in 
which, whatever he may have affirmed relative 
to the absurdity of translating ad verbum, we find 
the following remarkable words, which Professor 
Lee should by no means have omitted in his 
quotations : " Ego enim non solum fateor, sed 
libera voce profiteor, me in interpretatione Grae- 

COrum, ABSQUE SCRIPTURIS SACRIS UB1 ET 
VERBORUM ORDO MYSTERIUM EST, non VCfbum e 

verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu. Habeoque 
hujus rei magistrum Tullium, qui Protagoram Pla- 
tonis, et (Economicon Xenophontis, et iEschynis 



11 

ac Demosthenis duas contra se orationes pulcher- 
rimas transtulit : quanta in illis prsetermisit, 
quanta addiderat, quanta mutaverit ut proprie- 
tates alterius linguae suis proprietatibus expli- 
caret, non est hujus tempore dicere." Is it not 
evident from this passage, that what Jerome pro- 
fessedly treats of, is not the best manner of ex- 
ecuting a Biblical translation, but that to be 
adopted in translating merely human writings; and 
that, although, in the latter case, he conceived 
himself fully justified by the illustrious example 
of Tully, in omitting, adding, or changing, what 
he did not find congenial with modes of expres- 
sion already established among the Latins; yet, 
he by no means considered himself authorized to 
take any such liberties with the word of God, in 
which he says the very order of the words is a 
mystery ? 

I grant that he appeals to Scripture in vindica- 
tion of the free mode of translation, and adduces 
numerous examples of the discrepancies existing 
between the quotation made by Christ and his 
Apostles in the New Testament, and the original 
words of the Old ; but I am yet to be informed, 
that he intends to infer from this circumstance, 
that a translator of the Holy Scriptures is not to 
be taxed with infidelity if he allow himself to 
introduce similar discrepancies into his version. 
The Professor employs it, indeed, as an argu- 



12 

ment to prove, that we need not be very nice in 
regard to uniformity * ; yet, I presume most 
readers will agree with me in maintaining, that 
what Christ himself, and his inspired Apostles 
did, in quoting, referring, or alluding to the words 
of the Old Testament, can never, with any pro- 
priety, be construed into an argument to warrant 
translators to perform their task, as if they did it 
from memory, or merely referred to the original, 
without any regard to scrupulous accuracy and 
close imitation. Jerome, even goes so far as to 
say, that St. Paul, in quoting Isa. Ixiv. 4. " non 
verbum expressit e verbo, sed wapcuhpaoTiKUQ, eun- 
dem sensum aliis sermonibus indicavit;" and with 
respect to the discrepancy between Zach. xiii. 7. 
and Matt. xxvi. 31. "In hoc, ut arbitror, loco, 
juxta quorundam prudentiam evangelista piaculi 
reus est, quod ausus est prophetse verba ad Dei 
referre personam." Would it, therefore, be lawful 
in a translator, thus to paraphrase, or, from any 
principles of prudence or accommodation to his 
peculiar views, to alter the original, and make it 
speak his own sentiments ? Against all such liber- 
ties, the Father himself protests in his Epist. ad 
Paulin. " Taceo," says he, " de mei similibus 
qui si forte ad scripturas sanctas, post seculares 
litteras venerint, et sermone composite* aurem populi 

* Page 61. 



13 

mulserint ; quidquid dixerint, hoc legem Dei pu~ 
tant, nee scire dignantur quid prophetce, quid Apos- 
toll senserint, sed ad sensum suum incongrua aptant 
testimonial 

It must also be observed, that when Jerome 
condemns Aquila for his KaKofoAia, it is not so 
much for his verbal manner, although this also 
met with his reprobation, as on account of the 
etymological nicety with which that Jewish 
translator attempted to render the words of the 
original : " Qui non solum," says he, " verba, 
sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus 
est." That he did not always entertain so bad 
an opinion of him, appears from his Comment, 
in Hos. ii., where he calls him " curiosum et 
diligentem interpretem ;" and Epist. exxv. ad Da- 
masum, he writes ; " Aquila non contensiosus, ut 
quidam putant, sed studiosus verbum interpretatur 
ad verbum" 

Were this a proper place to examine minutely 
the manner in which this learned Father con- 
ducted his own translation from the Hebrew, 
considerable light might be thrown on his prac- 
tical views of the subject; but we shall not, 
perhaps, be wide of the mark, if we consider them 
as being in unison with his declaration in the 
Preface to Esther : " Librum Hesther variis trans- 
latoribus constat esse vitiatum, quern ego de ar- 
chivis Hebrseorum revelans, verbum e verbo ex- 



14 

pressius transtuli" taken together with that in his 
Preface to Job : " Haac autem translatio nullum 
de veteribus sequitur interpretem, sed ex ipso 
Hebraico Arabicoque sermone, et interdum Syro, 
nunc verba, nunc sensus, nunc simul utrumque re- 
sonabit" What he means exactly when he says 
that there is a mystery in the order of the words 
of Scripture, it is perhaps impossible to deter- 
mine. The word was much in vogue among 
ecclesiastical writers in the fourth, and some 
succeeding centuries, and it often occurs in con- 
nections in which those who used it scarcely seem 
to have affixed any meaning to it at all. We even 
find it employed in the same manner by so late a 
writer as the Jesuit Possevini, who is cited with 
approbation by Bishop Walton, in the Prolego- 
mena to his Polyglot, for saying, " Tot esse He- 
braica in Scriptura sacramenta, quot literae ; tot 
mysteria, quot puncta ; tot arcana, quot apices *." 
It may, however, be affirmed with certainty, that 
Jerome conceived some degree of sacred import- 
ance to attach to the method in which the words 
of Holy Scripture are disposed, which renders it 
unwarrantable in a translator to treat them as he 
might those of a human composition, omitting, 
adding to them, moulding, and transposing them 
at his pleasure. 

* Campbell ut sup. Dissert. IX. Part i. §. 1. 



15 

I will not accuse Professor Lee of unfairness, 
though I certainly cannot exculpate him from 
the charge of criminal inattention, in applying to 
our present subject the words of Dathe in his 
Preface to the minor Prophets. The direct ten- 
dency of the quotation introduced into the Re- 
marks *, from that able and judicious Scripture 
critic, is to impress the mind of the reader with 
an idea, that the principles of translation there 
laid down, were designed to bear upon popular 
versions of the Scriptures, and that his work was 
intended to serve as a model for the construction 
of such versions. Now this was by no means the 
case. Towards the conclusion of the very sentence 
preceding that with which the Professor's quota- 
tion commences, Dathe explicitly declares, " nee 
sine prsevia. admonitione Lectorem admittere ad 
lectionem interpretationis, quce a vulgari ratione 
haud parum recedit, et in qua conficienda leges 
mihi scripsi, quas nolim lectores ignorare, quos 
judices hujus versionis habere cupiam." And in 
his Preface to the Psalms, he says expressly; 
" Idem enim consilium sequendum fuit, quod in 
caeteris universal Veteris Testamenti versionis meae 
partibus mihi proposueram, scilicet ut verba He- 
braica clare et perspicue redder em > quo hujus Ungues 
studiosi quasi manu ducerentur ad tectum originalem 

* Page 13. 



16 

recte intelligendum et explicandum ;" which state- 
ment we find repeated in the Prefaces to the 
Pentateuch and Job. The fact is, as he himself 
informs us*, it was his object to furnish a version 
corresponding to the second kind of translation 
proposed by Griesbach f , as ranking next to what 
the great critic calls a public or Church version, 
namely, one which neither closely follows the 
letter of the text, nor swells out into paraphrase, 
but gives the ideas of the original, stripped of 
their Hebraistic forms, so as to be read with all 
the ease of original composition. It was designed, 
not for common readers, but for the learned, par- 
ticularly such as were engaged in the study of 
the Hebrew original ; consequently, the rules of 
translation, according to which it was conducted, 
and which are detailed in the Preface quoted by 
Professor Lee, cannot, with any degree of con- 
sistency, be urged as authority to determine the 
manner in which popular, or, as Griesbach calls 
them, public or Church versions, ought to be 
executed. Indeed, it is only necessary to glance 
at the otherwise highly valuable work of Dathe, 
to perceive its total unfitness to serve as a model 
of this kind of translation ; of this I shall ad- 
duce the following instances as a specimen. Hos. 

i. 2. m;r nrma x*wn nm ro? % which is pro- 

* Praefat. in Pentat. p. iv. 

f Repertory of Biblical and Oriental Literature, Part VI. p. 2. 



17 

perly rendered, " For the land hath committed 
great whoredom against Jehovah :" Dathe trans- 
lates thus ; Sic enim populus iste pro casto mei 
amore, alios deos amore impuro prosequitur. II. 16. 
-man tfoHhTh rrtffefl oat ftift *pb *' Notwithstand- 
ing I will allure her, and lead her into the wil- 
derness :" Verum enim vero deinde earn ad saniorem 
mentem revocabo, atque in deserto, quo a me deducta 
est, &c. IV. 4. fro *an»D W) " And thy people 
are as they that strive with the priest :" Omnes 
enim capitalium criminum rei sunt. Habak. ii. 4. 
rWT V01»»n pnsn " But the just by his faith shall 
live:" Sed pius propter illam jidem suam ejus imple- 
mentum videbit. 

Having thus shewn, to the satisfaction, I trust, 
of the impartial reader, that the authorities of 
Jerome and Dathe, as alleged in the Remarks, 
are altogether inapplicable to the argument rela- 
tive to such versions of the sacred Scriptures as 
are designed for general use, it cannot be matter 
of surprise that I should hesitate to subscribe to 
the conclusion at which Professor Lee arrives, 
p. 15. " The principle, therefore, adopted by the 
second class of translators, is that by which we 
are agreed that the merits of the question before 
us shall be tried ; which is, indeed, the only one 
to which we can have recourse, whether we take 
the path which is obviously pointed out by the 
necessity of the case, or are guided by the prac- 



18 

tice of the best translators, both of ancient and 
modern times." How could it be expected that 
I should agree to decide the question by the prin- 
ciples or practice of liberal translators, when this 
was the very class which I so strongly con- 
demned ? And how can my rejection of the 
purely verbal manner, be fairly construed into 
an approval of the opposite extreme ? The neces- 
sity of the case will, I believe, be found to be of 
so pressing a nature as to require a perfect ac- 
commodation of the language of the Bible, to 
exactly the same forms of speech which pre- 
viously exist among mankind; to judge from the 
best popular versions, of which our own stands in 
the foremost rank, it does not appear to be at all 
impossible to retain much of the characteristic 
stamp of the original phraseology, and to follow 
the sacred writers, Kara tto&ic, while, at the same 
time, no violence is done to the genius of the ver- 
nacular tongue, but, on the contrary, it acquires, 
by this very means, no inconsiderable accessions 
of strength, beauty, dignity, and sublimity. 



CHAPTER II. 

Principles of Biblical Translation. Canons relative to the 
Matter of Versions. The Manner of Popular Versions. 
Lowth, Batteax, Griesbach, Huet, Cicero, Horace, and 
Denham, quoted in Support of the literal Mode of trans- 
lating. The Importance of literal Versions of the Scrip- 
tures. Authorities for Uniformity of rendering. AH Bey 
grossly culpable in the Breach of this Rule. How a Trans- 
lator is to accommodate the Differences between the Lan- 
guage of the Original and that of the Version. Sacred 
Taste defined. Its Influence on Biblical Translations. 

In fixing the principles according to which 
translations of the Holy Scriptures are to be 
conducted, both the matter and the manner re- 
quire to be taken into consideration. 

With respect to the matter, it will be allowed 
by all, that it ought to be laid down as a funda- 
mental and indispensable canon, — That the version 
must exhibit the genuine sense of the original. This 
rule, which applies to translation in general, and 
increases in force, in proportion to the importance 
of the subjects treated of in the original work, is 
presented in all the plenitude of its authority, 
when brought to bear upon a translation of the 
word of God, as containing a communication of 
his will, to our species, on subjects of the 

c 2 



20 

highest possible interest to every individual, 
Except the real and unsophisticated meaning, or 
that sense which was intended by the Divine 
inspirer, be transfused into the version, it be- 
comes nothing more than "the word of man;" 
and, as the sacred original is most significantly 
called " the Scripture of truth *," it may fear- 
lessly be asserted, that, in proportion as its 
genuine sense is altered, and human conceptions 
are substituted, for " the mind of the Spirit," the 
door will be thrown open to the introduction of 
every dangerous and destructive heresy. 

Another canon relating to the matter of a 
Biblical Translation is, — That it furnish a complete 
transcript of the ideas conveyed by the original. In 
translating human authors, it is sometimes allow- 
able, when the subject is of no importance, to 
retrench an accessory or secondary idea, in order 
to give a greater degree of ease or dignity to the 
manner in which the principal idea is expressed ; 
but to do so in a version of the Scriptures, would 
be an infraction of that reverence to which they 
justly possess the most paramount claims. A 
translator may give the general sense of a pas- 
sage, and yet omit some idea which it may not 
be unimportant to the reader to know. On this 
point, Professor Lee very justly remarks, in as 

* Daniel .x, 21. 



21 

far as it regards the fulness of a Biblical version ; 
<( The pure word of God, then, as found in a 
translation, is, according to our principle, that 
which comprehends every idea contained in the 
original Scriptures, fully and faithfully expressed 
in the translation*." Faults against this rule, 
however, are found in many parts of the version 
of All Bey. Among others, he excludes the 
eternity of future punishment, from Matt. xxv. 
41.; the idea of preparation, expressed by the 
word Trapa<jKzvr), xxvii. 62. ; and that of sanctity, 
from the saints mentioned, Rev. viii. 3. 

The only other canon which it seems necessary 
to specify, as being of essential moment in re- 
ference to this part of our subject, is, — That the 
translation contain no supernumerary ideas, nor con- 
vey a single shade of meaning more than is suggested 
by the original. This rule, important as it must 
appear to every one who is anxious to preserve 
unadulterated the records of eternal life, forms 
no part of Professor Lee's estimate of a pure 
translation. It in fact lays the axe to the root of 
almost the whole system, by which he has at- 
tempted the defence of the Turkish Testament; 
for that book can never, by any rational con- 
struction of language, be said to represent the 
pure word of God, which, besides giving, in nu- 

* Remarks j p. 16, 
10 



22 

merous instances, a false sense, and curtailing 
the ideas of the original, exhibits, in other pas- 
sages, superadded notions, and combinations, 
of a nature never before introduced into any 
volume professing to be simply a version of the 
Sacred Scriptures. The canon which thus ex- 
cludes all redundancy, derives its religious ob- 
ligation from Prov. xxx. 5, 6. " Every word of 
God is pure ; — add not to his words, lest he reprove 
thee, and thou be found a liar." It was the opi- 
nion of Chrysostom, who, as Dr. Jebb observes, 
was no cabalist, that the addition even of a single 
letter may often introduce a vast body of concep- 
tions *; and in the passage just quoted, it is evi- 
dently implied, that, by superinducing human 
ideas upon the authoritative dictates of heaven, 
we not only expose ourselves to the censure of 
attempting to improve what is already declared 
to be pure, but incur the awful charge of falsify- 
ing Divine truth. Now, can it be maintained, 
that in such phraseology as the following, no 
ideas are presented but such as occurred to the 
mind of the writer at the time of its composition ; 
— Court of Victory, Place of Strength, the Court of 
Truth, the Exalted Creator, Market Day, Tutelary 
Saints, Sweet-meats of Omnipotence, Tatar, Lady 



* UoWaiciQ teat Ivoq (TTOiyeiov Trpo<T0r)Kr) 6\oK\r}pov vorifjiaTiov 
dtrrtyayrf hvvayav, quoted in Sacred Literature, p. 208. 



23 

Mary, Lord Abraham, &c. &c. ? That these are 
proper translations of the words as they stand 
in Ali Bey's Version, has already in part been 
shewn by Professor Lee himself, and will further 
appear in the sequel, where it is demonstrated, 
that they are totally irreconcileable with the 
purity of the Divine word, and perfectly inad- 
missible into any version whatever. 

But, besides giving precisely the genuine mat- 
ter of the original, it is required of a translator of 
the Holy Scriptures, that particular attention be 
paid to the manner in which it is expressed. And 
in regard to this part of the question, we would 
lay down the following rules, which, it is pre- 
sumed, will receive the approbation of all impar- 
tial and competent judges. 

1. Every translation intended for general use 
should be close and accurate. While we would 
consider the servile or verbal mode as entirely 
exploded, we cannot too strongly insist on the 
importance of a literal version, by which I under- 
stand a version which shall give a faithful and 
exact representation, not merely of the sense of 
the sacred writer, but also of his words, phrases, 
and conformation of sentences, as far as can be 
attained without doing violence to the natural 
genius or idiomatic proprieties of the language 
into which the version is made. Such a transla- 
tion must imitate the air and manner of the 



24 

original ; express the form and fashion of the 
composition, and furnish the reader with some 
idea of the peculiar turn and cast of that which 
it represents*. It must express, to appropriate 
the words of M. Batteax % the things, the 
thoughts, the expressions, the turns, the tones 
of the original : the things, such as they are, 
without adding, diminishing, or misplacing; the 
thoughts, in their colours, their degrees, their 
shades ; the expressions, natural, figurative, 
strong, copious, &c. ; and the whole, after a 
model which commands with rigour, and would 
be obeyed without constraint. According to the 
same critic, the translator has nothing in his own 
power ; he is obliged in every thing to follow his 
author; and to submit to all his variations with 
an unreserved compliance. 

What the celebrated Griesbach requires in a 
translation of this kind, is, " the highest possible 
degree of exactness," so that the plain unlettered 
reader may be warranted to confide in it, as 
representing to him the words of the original, 
not only with fidelity, but as closely as the dif- 
ference of the languages will allow J. With this 
coincides the opinion of that great master in the 
art, Huet, in his admirable work, " De Optimo 

* Lowth's Introd. to Isaiah, p. 1. 

j Principles of Translation, Edin, 1760, p. 3. 

t Repertorium, ut sup. p. 275, 



25 

genere Interpretandi * ;" — a work which ought to 
be in the hands of all who wish to excel in Bib- 
lical translation. " Optimum ergo," says he, 
" ilium esse dico interpretandi modum, quum 
Auctoris sententice primiim, deinde ipsis etiam, si ita 
fert utriusque lingua facultas, verbis arctissime ad- 
hceret Interpres, et nativum postremd Auctoris cha- 
racterem, quoad ejus fieri potest, adumbrat ; idque 
unum studet, ut nulla eum detractione imminutum, 
nullo additamento auctum, sed integrum, suique omni 
ex parte simlllimum perquam fideliter exhibeat. Cum 
enim nihil aliud esse videatur Interpretatio, quam 
expressa Auctoris imago et effigies ; ea autem optima 
imago habenda sit, quae lineamenta oris, colorem, 
oculos, totum denique vultus fllum, et corporis 
habitum ita refert, ut absens coram adesse videa- 
tur ; inepta verd ea figura sit, quce rem aliter effingit 
atque est, pulchriorem illam licet, et aspectu jucundi- 
orem exprimat : id profecto efficitur, earn demum 
praBstabiliorem esse Interpretationem, non quae 
Auctoris vel luxuriem depascat, vel jejunitatem 
expleat, vel obscuritatem illustret, vel menda cor- 
rigat, vel perversum ordinem digerat; sed quae 
totum Auctorem ob oculos sistat nativis adumbra- 
tum coloribus, et vel genuinis virtutibus laudan- 
dum, vel, si ita meritus est, propriis deridendum 
vitiis propinet." 

In this close, and as much as possible, literal 

* Pages 13, 14. 



26 

imitation of his original, the proper office of a 
faithful translator, has always been viewed to 
consist. Thus Cicero, when speaking of his man- 
ner of representing in Latin the speeches of De- 
mosthenes and Eschynes, says expressly : " Nee 
converti ut interpres, sed ut orator ; sententiis 
iisdem et earum formis tanquam figuris, verbis 
ad nostram consuetudinem aptis : in quibus non 
verbum pro verbo necesse habui reddere, sed 
genus omnium verborum vimque servari : non 
enim ea me annumerare lectori putavi oportere, 
sed tanquam appendere *." That he considered 
the oratorical qualities of his version, to be essen- 
tially different from the properties belonging to 
the work of a simple translator, is obvious, not 
only from the manner in which he here contrasts 
the Interpres and the Orator, but also from his 
declaration, Tusc. xviii. 41. " Fungar enim jam 
Interprets munere, ne quis me putet finger e ;" and 
xix. 43. " Hsec Epicuro confitenda sunt ; aut ea, 
quse modo expressa ad verbum dixi, tollenda de 
libro f." The same character of a faithful transla- 
tor, is given by Horace, in his Art of Poetry : — 

" Publica materies privati juris erit, si 

Nee circa vilem, patulumque mordaberis orbem, 
Nee verbum verbo curabis reddere, fidus 
Interpres." 

* Hieron. Epist. ad Pammach. 

f Encyclopedic Method, de Gram, et Litter. Art. Traduction. 



27 

As in the former case, the Translator and the 
Orator are contrasted, so here the Poet and the 
Translator; but in both instances the fidelity of 
the Translator is made to consist in the strictness 
with which he adheres to the words of his ori- 
ginal *. Hence the beautiful triad, in which 
Huet makes the principal merit of a good transla- 
tion to consist : " religio in exponendis sententiis ;jides 
in refer endis verbis; summa in exhibendo colore sollici- 
tudo f." 

The difficulties connected with the execution 
of this kind of translations, will be more or less 
numerous, in proportion to the coincidences or 
divarications of the different languages into which 
they are made. In translating, for instance, from 
the Hebrew into the Syriac, the Arabic, or the 
Ethiopic, the mutual relationship of these dialects 
renders it possible to give a good version in a 
manner nearly approximating to the verbal ; 
whereas in languages greatly removed in their 

* The same view is taken of the subject by Sir John Denham, 
when he says, " I conceive it a vulgar error in translating Poets, 
to affect being jidus interpres. Let that care be with them who 
deal in matters of fact, or matters of faith, but whosoever aims at 
it in poetry, as he attempts what is not required, so he shall never 
perform what he attempts." — Preface to the Mneid, Book II. 
He could not have passed a higher eulogium on the true charac- 
ter of Biblical translation, than by forming the combination here 
presented to the reader. 

f De Opt. gen. Interpret, p. 79. 



28 

general conformation from the Semitic branches, it 
requires a nice acquaintance with the distinctive 
genius of the dialect employed by the sacred 
writers, and that into which the version is made, 
so to accommodate the latter to the peculiar ex- 
pressions, arrangement, and terms of the original, 
as not to offend against purity of style. Yet there 
is in many of these languages, a natural flexibi- 
lity, which admits of their receiving new and 
foreign combinations to a degree, which might 
at first view appear impossible. Besides, the dic- 
tion of sacred Scripture partakes so much of the 
cast of common life, which is so well calculated 
to be universally intelligible, that it is capable of 
being transmitted through all the diversities of 
nation, age, and language, with little injury to its 
beauty, and none to its plainness in all material 
points*. 

The importance of the literal mode of transla- 
tion must be obvious from three considerations : — 
First, it operates as a curb upon the translator, 
and prevents the intermixture of human ideas 
and the technical phraseology of different nations 
with the pure mind of the Spirit of God, and the 
peculiar modes of expression by which He was 
pleased to reveal it to mankind. Secondly, it 
secures the unlearned reader from being reduced 
to the necessity of placing his faith in the wisdom 

* Dr. Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, Vol. I. p. 16. 



29 

of men, and not in the power of God, which work- 
eth by means of his word. By having a close 
and accurate version put into his hands, his judg- 
ment is not forestalled, but he is left to gather the 
sense from the translation, much in the same way 
as those did to whom the original was at first de- 
livered. Thirdly, it is highly important that all 
public versions of the Scriptures should be literal, 
because they form the text-book of missionaries 
and ordinary pastors of churches. Were we to 
regard the Bible merely as a repertory of mottos 
to be prefixed to sermons, it might indeed be a 
matter of indifference, whether the translation be 
free or literal ; but if religious teachers imitate the 
Apostles in opening and expounding the contents 
of Scripture, and " rightly dividing the word of 
truth," it is necessary both for themselves and 
their hearers, that the version which thus forms 
the basis of public instruction, should be in a high 
degree faithful and accurate. 

The Turkish version exhibits a strange medley 
of the literal and the free ; adhering at times with 
the utmost rigidity to the expressions and turns 
of the original ; and, at others, striking off into 
the use of an arrangement and phraseology, in the 
highest degree licentious and arbitrary. 

2. Chaste and unadorned simplicity is another 
quality of a good Biblical version. Such, in- 
deed, is one of the most prominent characteristics 



30 

of the Divine originals. The style of the New 
Testament, in particular, is plain and humble, 
just such as we are prepared to expect from per- 
sons circumstanced as were the authors of its 
different books. How totally repugnant to their 
manner to introduce into their writings pompous 
and high sounding words, titles, and epithets, 
such as abound in Ali Bey's Turkish New Testa- 
tament ! It is in diametrical opposition to the de- 
clarations of the Apostle Paul : "■ And I, brethren, 
when I came to you, came not with excellency 
of speech, or of wisdom, declaring unto you the 
testimony of God. My speech and my preaching 
were not with enticing words of man's wisdom, 
but in demonstration of the spirit, and of power; 
that your faith might not stand in the wisdom of 
men, but in the power of God." 1 Cor. ii. 1. 4. 
Nor is it less opposed to the common principles 
of criticism: — " Quis Aristotelis Metaphysica, 
quis Euclidis Geometrica, vel Arithmetica Dio- 
phanti, vel Aristoxeni Harmonica, vel Apollonii 
Conica, vel Galeni Anatomica aut Therapeutica, 
aliave hujusmodi ornare verbis studeat, ac senten- 
tiis ? Quis in iis eloquentiae flosculos, et dicendi 
copiam desideret ? Quis Archimedem de Sphaera 
et Cylindro declamitantem, vel Ptolemeeum de 
Syderum motibus perorantem sine risu audiat ? 
* Omari res ipsa negat, contenta doceri *;' " 

* Huetj ut sup. p. 23, 



31 

3. Perspicuity, The simplicity of structure and 
diction, which so much abounds in the Bible, 
greatly tends to prevent obscurity and ambiguity, 
and renders the way of the Lord, as therein re- 
vealed, so plain, that " wayfaring men, though 
fools, shall not err therein." To be perspicuous, 
therefore, the translator cannot do better than 
imitate this Divine simplicity, and avoid the in- 
volving of periods, and the employment of a style 
of expression, which may be found, indeed, in 
the language into which he makes his version, 
but which was formed upon models of a totally 
different stamp. 

As the version ought not to be more obscure, 
so neither must it be more perspicuous than the 
original. It is no part of the business of a transla- 
tor to explain or elucidate the sacred text : he is 
to give it exactly as it is, without attempting to 
render^ny part of it more intelligible to readers 
of the present day, than the Hellenistic style of 
the Apostolic writings was to the natives of 
Greece, or other parts of the world, to whom they 
were communicated in the early ages. 

4. Uniformity. In the Appeal, p. 29, 1 regarded 
it as a rule to be followed in Biblical Translation, 
that the words of the sacred original are to be 
rendered in an uniform manner in the different 
passages in which they occur, except in those 
cases in which it is unattainable, owing to the 



32 

different senses in which the same word is some- 
times used, and the impossibility of always find- 
ing a word of equal latitude in the language of the 
version. On this, Professor Lee remarks*, he 
66 has no hesitation in asserting, that no such 
canon any where exists, save only in the Appeal 
under consideration." This assertion, were it 
founded in truth, would, I doubt not, be con- 
sidered by many, as calculated to reflect honour 
on the Appeal, rather than bring it into discredit ; 
but I must disclaim all pretensions to originality 
in placing it before the view of the public. Beza, 
in his dedication of the New Testament to Queen 
Elizabeth, 1563, thus expresses himself: " Vete- 
rem Interpretem Erasmus merito reprehendit, 
quod unum idemque vocabulum scepe diversis modis 
explicat. Atqui in eo ipso quoties peccat? Le- 
viculum hoc est, dices. Ego vero aliter censeo, 
nisi cum ita necesse est, in his quidem libris in 
quibus ssepe videas mirifica quaedam arcana velut 
unius vocabuli involucris tegi," &c. And again : 
"Singula Grceca vocabula eodem ubique modo exprimere 
studui, nisi cum diversa fuerit significatio, aut pe- 
culiaris aliqua ratio incidit." Thus also, Henry 
Stephens, in the preface to his New Testament, 
12mo. 1576 : " Quum autem, slcut in Grceco ser- 
mons una eademque vox retinetur, in Latina quoque 

* Page 58. 



33 

interpretatione servatur, ea certe in re multum con- 
suli iis potissimum videtur, qui, cum Graecse lin- 
guae sint imperiti, Latino acquiescere sermoni 
necesse habent. Nam inde hoc saltern colligunt, 
uno eodemque vocabulo Grcecum scriptorem uti, ideo- 
que locum unum cum alter o conferri debere" " Here 
at one view," says Dr. Taylor in the preface to 
his Concordance, " those who shall undertake a 
new version, will see under every word, how va- 
riously it is rendered in the present version ; and 
so may more easily and exactly judge how just 
those renderings are, and how far they may be re- 
duced to one and the same rendering, which is much 
to be preferred where the sense will bear it." And 
our own translators, notwithstanding the licence 
they plead for, as referred to by Professor Lee, 
write to this effect: "Truly, that we might not 
vary from the sense of that which we translated before, 
if the word signified the same thing in both places, 
(for there be some words that be not of the same 
sense everywhere,) we were especially careful, and 
made a conscience, according to our duty *." To these 
may be added an authority from the moderns, 
who with such precedents before him, conceived 
himself warranted to lay it down as a canon, that 
:< The same original word, and its derivatives, accord- 
ing to the different leading senses, and also the same 

* Preface. 
D 



34 

fhrast, should be respectively translated by the same 
corresponding English word or phrase , except where 
a distinct representation of a general idea, or the 
nature of the English language, or the avoiding of 
an ambiguity, or harmony of sound, requires a 
different mode of expression *." 

It is said, indeed, in the Remarks f, that "the 
best translators have, since the times of the first 
Targumist, down to the present day, given the 
mind of the Holy Ghost without any such uni- 
formity as that contended for;" but an accurate 
collation will, I have no doubt, prove, that they 
have maintained this uniformity on the whole, and 
especially as it regards all the principal words 
and phrases ; and their instances of failure are 
rather to be considered as blemishes than models 
for imitation. Where, it may be asked, is the 
version to be found, besides that of Ali Bey, 
which exhibits, under different forms, the com- 
mon words, — day, night, light, darkness, head, hand, 
or the more important and characteristic phrases, 
Son of man, Heavenly Father 1 What should we 
say of an English translator, who, at one time, 
should express, o irarrip vjuwv o olpavioQ, by " your 
Heavenly Father," and, at another, by " your 
Celestial Sire ?" or who should, within the com- 

* Newcome's Preface to the Minor Prophets, p. xxiv. 
f Page 60. 



35 

pass of a few verses, render prikftfa by disciple, 
pupil, and scholar ? Until such time as the Pro- 
fessor is able to shew, that such a practice is 
commendable, his arguments drawn from the 
conduct of the Evangelists and Apostles, and the 
style of languages, must be considered as alto- 
gether aside from the point, and undeserving of 
any refutation ; and I must, therefore, still main- 
tain, that the want of uniformity tends to destroy 
the diversity of style observable in the sacred 
writers, breaks the connexion, obscures, and not 
unfrequently alters the sense, and greatly retards 
the edification of the reader, as it puts it out of 
his power to compare the parallel passages with 
that ease he otherwise might, where the memory 
is aided by identity of expression. 

5. Precision. This quality, which forms so es- 
sential a characteristic of good writing in general, 
and is of the last importance, as it regards the 
conceptions of things formed in the mind, deserves 
to be closely studied by the translator, both in 
the choice and arrangement of his expressions, in 
order to enable him, not merely to convey just 
and accurate ideas, but to do it with that effect 
which was intended to be produced by the 
original. 

6. Dignity and purity of language. While, on 
the one hand, care must be taken not to injure 
the beautiful simplicity and plainness of the ori- 

d 2 



36 

ginal, the translator must beware, on the other, of 
all such words or modes of expression as are low 
and vulgar, and are inconsistent with that sacred 
elevation and purity of mind, for which the writers 
of Scripture are so highly distinguished. 

If, to all the other qualities which ought to be 
given to his version, a Biblical translator can add 
such a degree of concinnity, as will in some mea- 
sure entitle it to the character of avro^veg, or a na- 
tive production, so muck the better; but as the 
artificial idioms of language differ so widely, ac- 
cording to their different degrees of cultivation, 
and according to the peculiar intellectual associa- 
tions formed and predominating among the people 
by whom they are spoken ; and as a great propor- 
tion of the idiomatic expressions found in the Bible 
are not purely linguistical, but have originated in 
certain particular usages, or contain certain im- 
portant modifications of doctrine, it is obviously 
impossible to impart to such versions as those re- 
quired for general use, the entire stamp of vernacu- 
lar works. All that a translator is at liberty to do, 
in this case, is so to arrange and adapt the words 
and conformations of the language into which he 
makes the version, to the peculiar features of his 
original pattern*, or " form of sound words," as 



* 'YirorvTrixHTiQ. 2 Tim. i. 13. delineatio, forma, praeformatio, 
exemplar, exemplum, ad quod se alii conformant. 



37 

not to offend against any of its natural and ver- 
nacular proprieties. The great secret of his art 
lies in bringing the materials of the new language 
into accordance with the manner of Scripture, 
not in reducing the venerable and divine contex- 
ture of Scripture phraseology to the standard of 
modern and multiform diction. 

But, as it will be allowed by all to be an easy 
matter to lay down rules for a good popular trans- 
lator, or even for a translator to lay down such 
rules for the government of his own practice, while 
it is confessedly a task of no ordinary difficulty, 
uniformly to observe them in the execution of the 
work, it may not be out of place to enquire here, 
What is that grand key-stone principle, by which 
all the other elements shall be united, and which 
alone can secure the solidity and efficient utility 
of the superstructure ? To this I unhesitatingly 
answer, Sacred Taste, or, in other words, a mind 
formed and matured by the holy moral principles 
inculcated in the Scriptures ; habituated to the 
study of the Bible, and Biblical literature ; and 
possessed of a predilection for whatever is agree- 
able to the spirit, manner, and design of the Di- 
vine book, combined with a repugnance to every 
thing of a contrary description. It would seem, 
from the sarcastic manner in which Professor Lee 
quotes this phrase, not fewer than six or seven 
times in the course of his Remarks, that its acci- 



3S 

dental use in the Appeal must have introduced 
some strangely irritating principle among his 
mental associations. The terms, he says, are 
perfectly new to him; and it is certainly very 
possible for him not to have met with them before 
in the course of his reading ; yet, if I mistake not, 
he will find terms nearly allied to them, Matt, 
xvi. 23. " But he turned, and said unto Peter, 
Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence 
unto me ; for thou savourest not the things that be 
of God, but those that be of men." Here our Sa- 
viour reproves his disciple for the want of that 
very taste in relation to his mission and kingdom, 
which we insist upon as necessary to the true 
understanding and right interpretation of the word 
of the kingdom. Rectitude of disposition, and a 
holy relish for truth, go farther towards the ac- 
quirement of just sentiments on religion, than the 
exercise of the most acute intellect : "If any man 
will (0£\y is determined, minded, whose wish and 
delight it is to) do his will, he shall know of the 
doctrine, whether it be of God :" John vii. 17. 
Nor is the phrase in dispute without its parallel 
elsewhere in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, de- 
scribing certain characters who had powerfully 
felt the influence of the Gospel, says of them, 
that (icaAov yivoaixkvQvs Bsov pri^a) they had " tasted 
the good word of God:" Heb. vi. 5. I stay not at 
present to define wherein exactly this experience 



39 

consisted ; but I make bold to say, that applied, 
as the word taste here is, with an especial reference 
to the excellence of Divine truth, it required the 
effort of a mind not very vividly impressed by this 
truth at the time, to attempt to turn into ridicule 
an association no less accordant with Scripture 
phraseology than congenial to the best feelings of 
the Christian heart. 

But the usage of Scripture apart: — What is 
there in the terms, sacred taste, that can be deemed 
incongruous or absurd ? We speak of profane taste, 
pure taste, spiritual taste, poetic taste ; why not 
also of sacred taste? Nothing is more common than 
the combinations — sacred literature, sacred letters, 
the sacred writers : there cannot, therefore, surely 
be any impropriety in employing the phrase sacred 
taste, to denote the judgment of a mind rightly 
trained to the study of the sacred Scriptures, and 
so disciplined by their sanctifying influence, as to 
be peculiarly qualified to decide on the subject 
matter of their contents, and the manner in which 
it should be treated in placing it before mankind. 
Wherever this hallowed principle is in operation, 
whether in Europe or Asia, it will more or less 
produce the same effects. Its possessor will 
readily discern whatever is suitable to, or incon- 
sistent with the appropriate diction of the Bible ; 
and it is on this account that I consider it highly 
requisite in a Biblical translator. He may be 



40 

deeply versed in the profane literature of the 
people into whose language he is preparing his 
translation, but if he consult their taste, and allow 
it to dictate to him in what manner he shall ex- 
press to them the oracles of God, we may venture 
to predict, that he will furnish them with a sorry 
representation of these Holy writings. If, as 
D'Alembert informs us, Voltaire had always lying 
on his table, the Petit Car&me of Masillon, and 
the tragedies of Racine ; the former to fix his 
taste in prose composition, and the latter in 
poetry*; we may surely affirm, that the man 
who would successfully transfuse into another 
language the Scriptures of truth, ought to have 
the Bible continually before him; he ought to 
be most intimately familiar with the minutise of 
its style and manner, as well as with its general 
contents ; and, deeply sensible of the importance 
and responsibility of his task, he ought incessantly 
to pray with David : " Teach me good judgment 
(Heb. DVD taste) and knowledge: for I have 
believed thy commandments." Psalm cxix. 66. 

* Stewart's Elements of Philosophy, p. 377. 



CHAPTER III. 

Examination of Professor Lee's Charges of Mistranslation. 
The Renderings of the adscititious Names and Titles, as 
given in the Appeal sufficiently correct. Court of Victory. 
Court of the Creator. Court of Truth. The Presence of 
Solomon. Shekinah of God. Lord Abraham. Lady Mary. 

His Excellency, and His Majesty Jesus. ^^— -Jj velisi, and 

j^Vj Rabbani, considered. The Argument in Defence of 
" Kudsi Sherif" as a Substitute for " Jerusalem," refuted. 

The first charge which I brought against Ali 
Bey's Turkish Version, related to the arbitrary 
manner in which the Divine names had been 
translated, and the variety and pomposity of 
periphrase that are substituted for the uniform 
and unadorned simplicity of the original. Instead 
of always rendering Qwg, God, by the single but 

significant Arabic word 431 Allah, a word perfectly 
intelligible to every Mohammedan, it was shewn *, 
that the translator has employed not fewer than 
twelve different words or phrases ; and that out of 
nearly one hundred times in which Qwg occurs in 
the book of Revelation alone, the simple word 

* Appeal, p. 19—21, 



42 



M Allah is only to be found in twenty-seven pas- 
sages. 

Now, in what manner has this charge been met 
by Professor Lee ? Has he shewn that there exists 
no such fastidious variety, or meretricious pom- 
posity, as that developed in the Appeal, and that 
the version of Ali Bey is in this respect precisely, 
or, at least, nearly conformable to all other trans- 
lations of the Holy Scriptures ? No ; he admits 
the diversity of renderings, and the liberal use 
of periphrastic epithets ; but, instead of entering 
fairly upon the discussion of the question, whether 
it be lawful for a translator to take such liberties 
with the sacred text, he manages to throw dust 
into the eyes of his readers, by endeavouring to 
make it appear that I have mistaken the meaning 
of the Oriental words, — well aware, no doubt, 
that on such points, mankind in general are accus- 
tomed jurare in verba maghtri. Nor, perhaps, 
has the stratagem failed, in securing at least the 
partial attainment of its object, in convincing the 
judgment of those who have suffered themselves 
to be affected by it, that no dependance whatever 
can be placed on the criticisms of one who has 
stumbled at the very threshold of the inquiry. 

But what if it should be proved that this accu- 
sation is entirely without foundation ; that my 
translation of the super-excrescent titles given to 
the Divine Being, is, in every instance, sufficiently 

11 



43 

correct, and, in most, supported by the highest 
authorities ; and, that the Professor's own version 
of them, after all the pains he has taken to set it 
off, so far from invalidating my argument, greatly 
corroborates it, by exhibiting in a still more 
ridiculous point of view, the fopperies of the 
Osmanli style, and the perfect incongruity of their 
introduction into the sacred Scriptures ? 

The first instance of mistranslation which he 
attempts to substantiate, is that in which I have 

rendered the words jjte <M Allah tdala, by " the 
Supreme God." I have committed a mistake, it 
should seem, by " rendering ^U; tdala as an 
adjective, which is in reality a verb;" but it is 
conceded to me *, that " the word has been so 
applied," and that " an adjective will most readily 
convey its force to the mind of an European." It 
is unnecessary, therefore, to animadvert on this 
cavil, especially as Professor Lee has the gene- 
rosity to say, he will " not take advantage of the 
mistake;" only it will be observed, that he is 
himself obliged to commit the same grammatical 
blunder — high and highest, by which he gives the 
word, being equally adjectives with the word 
supreme. But it is asked, why I have gone so 
far out of my way to give a sense to the word, 
which it will not bear ? Why really I had not the 

* Remarks, p. %0. 



44 

most distant idea, that in using the word supreme, 
I had moved a single step out of the beaten path 
of language. According to Dr. Johnson, it signi- 
fies* — " 1. Highest in dignity; highest in authority. 
2. Highest; most excellent :" and my opponent 
tells us, that "the sense most applicable to the 
word ^J\*j taala, will be high, highest, or the like" 
Where then is the difference ? For my part, I did 
not, nor do I now consider the phrase " Supreme 
God" to be technical or metaphysical, any more 
than the "highest," or "most high God," which 

we are informed Ji\x» 431 Allah taala properly im- 
plies. They are, in fact, perfectly equivalent, 
both pointing out the infinite exaltation and ex- 
cellence of the Divine nature ; its superiority 
over the objects of idolatrous worship; and the 
universal dominion which God exercises over his 
creatures. 

At page 23 of the Remarks, is a criticism on 

the words ^Uj dl! ^jts Tengri Allah taala, " God, 
God Most High;" which I only notice in order 
to furnish the reader with another specimen of the 
weakness and futility which characterize too many 
of the Professor's arguments. The form in which 
the phrase occurs, is, it seems, in construction 
with a possessive pronoun, instead of being used 
absolutely, as I had represented it. A mighty 
fault indeed ! yet its correction required no less 



45 

an effort on the part of my opponent, than the 
obvious mistranslation of a word, and the un- 
warranted assumption of a various reading. By 

the phrase ^Uj alM jfj^ Tengrimuz Allah tadla, 
" the translator," says he, " has represented his 
original, as having KvpLu) rw Oew i)fiCov, Unto the 
Lord our God" But what authority has he for 
rendering <_£/& Tengri, by icvpios, Lord? He will 
neither find it in the Lexicons, in the usage of the 
language, nor, I may add, in his own vocabulary ; 
for he tells us, page 19, that it signifies God. 
The original reading must therefore have been 
Gcw tw 9«p rjjuwv, " Unto God our God." But in 
what Greek copy of this passage (Rev. v. 10.) do 
we meet with either the reduplication of Qe6g, 
or the reading Kvply tw Gcw r]^Cov ? Or in which of 
the versions is there the smallest variety in this 
respect ? The Professor well knew that it was not 
to be found either in the one or the other, and 
was therefore obliged to defend it on the ground 
of conjectural possibility, and what he conceives to 
be the unimportance of the addition, supposing it 
to be merely the creation of AH Bey's fancy. 
What a pity that the former of these expedients 
has not been applied to innumerable other pas- 
sages of the Turkish New Testament, containing 
various readings unsupported by any manuscript 
authorities hitherto discovered ! 



46 

The next phrase which I am accused of ren- 
dering incorrectly is <>2Jjz c-ta*. Ginabi Izzet, L e. 
as given in the Appeal, Glorious Majesty. " The 
literal meaning of the first of these words <-A>. 
Janab," says the Professor, " is, according to the 
Soorah, *l£^ dargah, place, court, or the like ; and 
of the second, lzjjs. izzat, strength, or victory. The 
phrase is literally, therefore, place, or court, of 
strength or victory," p. 24. Had I professed to give 
a definition of the radical import of each of the pe- 
riphrastic titles given to the Deity by Ali Bey, and 
other Oriental writers, justice would require, that 
I should here stand corrected ; but I have yet to 
learn, that in determining the signification of words, 
as practically applied, we are to be guided by their 
primary and etymological import, and not by the 
usage of language. Meninsky, to whom Professor 
Lee can also refer when it suits his purpose, 
gives substantially the same literal meaning of 
the words as that assigned them in the Soorah ; 
but then, as a Turkish Lexicographer, he adds 
under c_ ta>. Ginab, if usit. pro nostris vulgatis Do- 
minatio, Excellentia, Celsitudo, Majestas," and 

translates the phrase <-A« cJ&>. c-taf- genabi, 
gelalet, meab, by " Gloriosa, augusta, Mqjestas" 

And under the word tojss izzet, "usit. magnifi- 
centia, potentia, gloria, honor:" to which we may 



47 

add, that the word is used in the same significa- 
tion by AH Bey, 1 Cor. ii. 8. ^j>j iL&jc- izzetun 
Rabbi, " the Lord of Glory" and in upwards of 
thirty other places in the New Testament ; whereas 
it is never once used to denote strength or victory. 
Am I not then entitled to ask, what egregious 

blunder I have committed in rendering c^jz <— >L>* 
Ginabi Izzet by Glorious Majesty ? However, that 
I may not appear pertinacious, and to allow every 
possible advantage to the advocates of the Turkish 
New Testament, I shall in future translate the 
phrase, as used by Ali Bey, for 9e6g God, or 
Kvpiog Lord, by court of victory, or place of 
strength, which we are told (Remarks, p. 24.) 
is its " literal meaning," and its import, " mighty 
Godr 

In rendering ^Ij s-ta»* Ginabi Bari, the Divine 
Majesty, I was guided by the same general prin- 
ciple as in the above instance, it being my object 
to exhibit to the Committee of the Bible Society, 
the variety of epithets employed by the Turkish 
translator, rather than to furnish them with nice 
etymological definitions, which, if I had done, I 
should certainly have been taxed with the kuko- 
foXia of Aquila. ^b Bari does indeed signify 
Creator, but Professor Lee is just about as incor- 
rect as I was, when he affirms, that " the true 
translation of the whole phrase, therefore, is The 



48 

Creator, and not The Divine Majesty, p. 26. Ac- 
cording to his own determination of the word 
c->U*. Ginab, the real meaning must be the 
Court of the Creator; and the reader must 
not forget, that this is defended as a proper trans- 
lation of the simple word Qtog, God. 

On the two following criticisms, p. 26, it is 
only necessary to remark, that what I had ren- 
dered Supreme Divinity, might be rendered more 
literally Exalted Creator, as Professor Lee pro- 
poses ; but, according to his own shewing, 
tjs*. <-A*- Ginabi Hakk, cannot mean o aX^Oivo^ 
Otog, the true God, but the court of truth, 
or the True Place, — the dpD mdkom of the Rab- 
binical writers. 

In the Appeal, p. 24, I observed, that " one 
of the first things that must strike a Christian 
reader of this (Ali Bey's) translation, is the cir- 
cumstance, that the names Jesus and Christ sel- 
dom occur without the prefix c-yi>» Hdzret ; a 
title by which kings and great men are addressed, 
and which corresponds to our Majesty, Highness, 
Lordship, Ladyship, &c. Now," I further remarked, 
" not to insist on its being totally foreign to the 
simplicity of the sacred writers, to put into their 
mouth, His Majesty Jesus, or The Lllustrious Jesus, 
it certainly cannot appear, at least to us Chris- 
tians, to convey any peculiar degree of honour 



49 

on our Redeemer, to give him a title in common 
with Mohammed and the Koran. For the same 
reasons, I must object to its being applied to 
God as a title of respect. Instead of exalting, it 
is derogatory to his honour." In order to evade 
the force of these observations, Professor Lee 

first roundly denies that ci^2>- H&zrct means 
either majesty, highness, lordship, or ladyship; but 
adds, immediately : " We do not mean to argue, 
however, that this word has not been translated 
occasionally, as giving the sense laid down by 
Dr. Henderson ; or that these translations have not 
been sufficiently accurate for general readers. But 
we cannot, therefore, also allow, that we can 
hence determine the sense of the word sufficiently 
accurate for our present purpose :" p. 27, 28. 
Here tne paragraph ends, and we are left to guess 
what the " present purpose" is ; — a task, however, 
of no great difficulty, even to a superficial reader, 
Fault is found with my rendering the word by 
Illustrious, without having shown how it happens 
to have this meaning : but I must confess, I never 
dreamed that I should be put upon proving, what 
any person capable of investigating the subject, 
might discover on turning up a Lexicon, or attend- 
ing to the use of the word in common parlance, 
One of the illustrious predecessors of Professor 
Lee, in the Arabic chair at Cambridge, in ki$ 



50 

invaluable Lexicon Heptaglotton, assigns to one 
of the forms of the same root, the meaning of 
" Vir nobilis et illustris ;" and Meninsky, after 
giving the definition, " Prsesentia, et Dignitas, 
Majestas, Dominatio, &c. Nomen honoris quo 
de persona aliqua loquimur," and shewing how- 
it is applied, exhibits, among other instances, 
the phrases " U»b c^-3>. hcesreti pasha, et usit. 
ijpjao. Li>U pasha hcEzretleri. q. Dominus Bassa, 
aut Illustrissimus Bassa." The fact is, I selected 
the term Illustrious, as the least likely to associate 
burlesque ideas with the phraseology of sacred 
Scripture, and was the more inclined to use it, as 
I found it universally applicable in those instances 
in which ciy£>- Hcezret occurs as an adscititious 
ornament, or mark of respect. 

Let us now see how it is interpreted by the 
Professor, and how the meanings which he is 
pleased to affix to it, apply to the version of AH 
Bey. 

In the first place, we are told, p. 27, that 
" when applied to kings, this word may properly 
be rendered by the presence, which is its exact 
meaning." Abandoning, therefore, for a moment, 
my favourite, but, according to Professor Lee, 
improper term illustrious, let us substitute the 
presence, Matt. vi. 29. " And I say unto you, that 
^UjU, cjja*. hcezreti Suleiman the presence of 
16 



51 

Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one 
of these." 

Again; we are informed, that "when applied 
to God, it is nearly equivalent to the Jewish She- 
kinah, but can by no principle of interpretation be 
made to signify illustrious, as its primary meaning." 
Fortunately, Ali Bey furnishes us with an ex- 
ample of this also, Rev. xiv. 4. "These were 
redeemed from among men, being the first fruits 

unto *$\ cDj«a>. hcezreti Allah ie the shekinah 
of God, and to the Lamb." How this interpreta- 
tion of the passage is to be reconciled with the 
opinion of those divines, who hold that the Lamb 
of God, to whom John pointed, is the true 
Shekinah, I pretend not to say; but proceed to 
the third part of the definition which instructs 
us: — 

That " the word c^d^ Hazrat in Arabic is 
used precisely in the same way as Kvpiog in Greek, 
^Htt in Hebrew, and Lord in English, being- 
applied to any person of rank, whether the rank 
be that of Lord, as a nobleman, a prophet, or of 
the most high God:" Remarks, p. 28. Had this 
assertion been supported by any attempt at proof, 
it might have been deserving of consideration, 
but as no examples are produced, and I will ven- 
ture to affirm, none can be produced, we may 
place it to the score of the other novel philologi- 

■% 2 



52 

cal doctrines set forth by our author. I was 
aware, indeed, of the fact, that Sarah, in respect-' 
ful token of subjection to her husband, called him 
Lord, (/cvpiov, to which d^da. Hazzret is here said 
to be parallel,) but I certainly did not know that 
the Patriarch had also received this title from the 
Apostle Paul, till I read Ali Bey's version of Rom. 
xi. 1. " I also am of the seed of Lord Abraham, 
»+bijA cDjA^. Hcezreti Ibrahim!''' 

But why did Professor Lee forget to furnish us 
with the signification of the word as applied to 
ladies, as well as to men of rank, in the east ? He 
may reply, it was unnecessary, as we have no 
instance of its use in Ali Bey's version before the 
names either of Sarah, or Drusilla, or Herodias, 
or Candace, or the Queen of Sheba. Very true ; 
but if my eyes do not deceive me, we read, Matt. 

i. 16. " And Jacob begat Joseph ^j^j CSty c^o>- 
Hczzreti Miriamun zougi, the spouse of Hcezreti, 
Mary." How would my antagonist translate this ? 
For my part, denied as I am the use of the word 
illustrious, and loudly as he may declaim against 
the idea of majesty, lordship, ladyship, &c. being 
attached to the word, I know of no way of ren- 
dering it more properly into English than by 
Lady Mary *. 

* In Fulke's Rhemish and Protestant New Testament, we find 
the following note on the use of this epithet among Roman 



53 

Further; it is attempted to defend the applica- 
tion of this title to our blessed Saviour, because 
he "is called o Kvpiog 'I wove in Greek, which is, 
-in our translation, rendered by the Lord Jesus :" 
but, in order to give validity to this argument, 
it must be shewn, First, that aJ>ja&~ Hcezret is 
really parallel to kuoioc, Lord; and, Secondly, 
that Ali Bey uses it as a simple translation of 
KvpioQ, where this word occurs in the original. 
Were the parallelism complete, or did the two 
words nearly agree in the mode in which they 
are applied, I should consider it the most con- 
summate trifling to contend about their primary 
and etymological import, and should at once con- 
cede the point to my opponent. But that the 
agreement is by no means so great as he wishes 
to make the reader believe, must be evident from 
his own shewing, as exemplified in the above in- 
stances, and from the manner in which c^>. 

Catholics : — " Likewise when you call the blessed Virgin our 
Ladie, as you call God and Christ our Lord, what doe you but 
make her equal with God and Christ in power and redemption. 
In which respect God is called our Lord. For it is no term of 
civil and temporall dignitie and authoritie as when we say our 
soveraigne Ladie, the Queen, but a religious and divine honour 
that you ascribe unto her, calling her absolutely, Our Ladie, as 
blasphemously as the Frenchmen doe ridiculously call other saints 
Monsieur S. -Pierre, M. S. Peter, or my Lord S. Peter, and 
Madame S. Genofefeve, Mistresse S. Genofefa, or, my Ladie S, 
Genofefa." Page 5, 



u 

Hcezret is translated in the Appendix, by a Gen- 
tleman whose authority is quoted in the body of 
the Remarks, as that of " a very able Orientalist *." 
This Gentleman (M. Desgranges, Assistant Inter- 
preting Secretary to the King of France for the 
Oriental Languages, &c.) asserts, that " it would 
be as strange not to say in Turkish or Arabic, 
His Excellency Jesus, as it would be singular 
to use such an expression among us f." It will 
be seen from the Appeal, p. 24, that I came 
pretty near this rendering, only raising the title 
a degree higher, when I gave the words His Ma- 
jesty Jesus ; but we have another notable instance 
in which oj^ H<zz?*et must be taken in this 
sublime sense, in the verse already quoted from 
the first chapter of Matthew. The words are 
these ; j&L+zjb <jjJt ^p^z^. ^—^ ^l^jo j g?~*< <£ 
Ki Mesyh didukleri Isa Hcezretleri a?idan dogmishtur. 
In order to increase the intensity of signification, 
the word is here put in the plural form, with 
respect to which, Meninsky says, " Sic autem 
in PL ^jpj£=>. hsezretleri postponi solitum no- 
minibus Dei, Sanctorum et Magnatum, est pro 
Majestas ejus, sanctitas, celsitudo, &c. Polonis 

* Page 32. 

^ — « il serait aussi extraordinaire de ne pas dire en Turc ou 
en Arabe> son Excellence Jesus, qu'il serait singulier de s'exprimer 
ainsi parmi nous," Appendix, p. 29. 



o5 



pari fere ratione lego Mosc ut ^pj**- *UoU 
padishah hazzretleri, quod et *U>jb c^J^ hcezreti 
padishah. Rex ejus Majestas. quod nos Serenissi- 
mus Rex, vel sua Regia Majestas. Ihre Konigliche 

Mayestatt. £## 2taz/ Majesta, Sa Majeste, &c." 
According, therefore, to this interpretation, the 
verse just cited will read thus : " And Jacob 
begat Joseph, the spouse of Lady Mary, of 
whom was born His Majesty Jesus, who is 
called Messiah." I leave it with the reader to 
say, whether he could have supposed it possible, 
that any person, who really venerates the inspired 
records of Heaven, would attempt to vindicate 
the introduction into them of such phraseology 
as this ? — a phraseology no less repugnant to 
sound criticism, than it is to sober and en- 
lightened Christian feeling, 

I have only further to observe on this word 
c^a>. Hazzret, that it is scarcely ever, or, at 
least, very seldom, substituted by Ali Bey for 
Kupoc, in the combination o Kvpiog 'Irjaovg, " the 
Lord Jesus ;" this honour being reserved for the 

word l-jj Rabb, which literally and properly sig- 
nifies Lord. Professor Lee is therefore incorrect, 
in representing Lifya*. Hcezret as thus applied. 
When used, which is most frequently, it is prefixed 



56 



to Jesus after lj, Rabb, thus ; ^-c ci^a^ ycj 
Rabbimuz Haizreti Isa, " Our Lord, Zord Jesus " 
or, as I gave it, " Our Lord, the Illustrious Jesus." 

It is also prefixed to t->j Rabb, when there is no- 
thing but Kvpiog in the original, as Acts x. 48. 
<<*~>\ ££>j c-yac^ Hcezreii Rabbun is mi, " the name 
of the Lord Lord," the Illustrious Lord, His Ex- 
cellency Lord, or how it may best be rendered into 
English. 

Notwithstanding the summary manner in which 
the Professor dismisses the phrases ^JUj j^* Hakk 
taala, and ^ ul^o^ Hcezreti Hakk, p. 30, I must 
beg to retain my translations, Supreme Verity, 
and Illustrious Verity: neither the one nor the 
other signifying as he would have it, o aXrjOivog 
Otoe, The True God ; — a phrase which Ali Bey 

very correctly renders by 41! jpU sadik Allah, 
] John v. 20, and elsewhere. 

Nor is he one whit more fortunate, when he 

says, p. 30, " 43! ^^-J? velisi Allah, is as he (the 
Author of the Appeal) has given it, The Good 
God." For in this instance the true proverb is 
verified: " If the blind lead the blind, both shall 
fall into the ditch." In assigning the signification 
good to L5 ~^j velisi, I was misled by the adjective 
form y-tkj velis, to which Meninsky, after Castell, 



57 

gives the meaning of bonus; but I am now con* 
vinced, that it is nothing else than the substantive 
^ veli, Rector, Judge, Prefect, Patron, which oc- 
curring in construction with another noun pre* 
ceding it in the genitive case, takes the suffix 

m f 

^ si, thus; Heb. xiii. 20. JU? 431 ^J 3 c^JL 
Selamun velisi Allah tadla, " The Prefect of peace, 
God Most High." It is the same with the com- 
bination, 2Thess. iii. 16. <JUj c_^ 1 ^4j u£«L» ^-j 
Pes selamun velisi Rabb tadla, " Now the Prefect 
of peace, the Lord Most High," &c. Whether 
Professor Lee will adopt this rendering as im- 
plicitly as he did the other, it is impossible to 
say ; but one thing is certain, that instead of this 
accumulation of epithets, the original has nothing 
more than o 0coe God, and 6 Kvpioc The Lord. 

We are next told, p. 33, that " the word JlJ, 
(which I had translated Divine,) no where occurs 
in the Gospel of St. Matthew, the Acts of the 
Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, or the book 
of Revelations, upon which Dr. Henderson pro- 
fesses to have made his remarks, as a translation 
of the word Kvpioc ; and we may venture to affirm, 
that it occurs in no other book as a translation of 
that word without some adjunct. The mistake, 
therefore, which Dr. Henderson ascribes to AH 
Bey, must, in fact, fall upon himself alone." On 
this statement, I would observe, that it is as falla- 



58 

cious as it is imposing. In the first place, I neve? 
professed to have made any remarks on the Acts 
of the Apostles ; Secondly, if the reader will turn 
to the title of my Remarks, at page 15 of the 
Appeal, he will find, that they are stated to be 
"chiefly" drawn from the three books of the New 
Testament here specified ; and, Lastly, whether 

the word <Jbj Rabbani occurs with or without 
any adjunct, is nothing to our argument. It is 

found, 1 Thess. iv. 15. <M ti\jj a$Sj wekelam Rab- 
bani He, as a translation of the Greek, kv Xoyw 
Kvpiov, "by the word of the Lord;" and James 

v. 10. <fcW ciVj f- 5 ' ismi Rabbani He, Greek, ™ 
ovo/jLan Kvplov, " in the name of the Lord." Why 
Ali Bey did not render the words <&M ^M CSij 

Rabbun Kelami He, and Aij »J ismi Rabbile, in the 
usual way, I pretend not to determine. 

Having thus long put the patience of the reader 
to the rack, by leading him through this forest of 
verbal criticism relative to the names and titles 
given to God in the Turkish version, I will not 
detain him with any observations on the remaining 
expressions used instead of Kvpiog, which are 
nearly as many as those occurring in the shape 
of variations for Qwg, as my renderings are all 
sufficiently supported by what has already been 
adduced in the course of this chapter. 



59 

On the Professor's Remarks, p, 45, respecting 
Ali Bey's six variations in the translation of 
Kvpiog 6 Beog o UavToicpaTwp, as occurring in the 
book of Revelation, I have only to observe in ge- 
neral, what every one will readily perceive, that 
they contain a great deal of vapouring about no- 
thing. My objection to jCj& Tengrimus, "our God," 

did not lie against the adoption of the pronoun ipv, 
which is not only preferred by Griesbach as the 
probable reading, but is the textual reading in the 
second edition of Matthaei, and in the editions of 

Knapp and Tittmann ; but against the use of is]& 
Tengri, " God," as substituted for Kvpiog Lord, a 
liberty which must appear unwarrantable to every 
person of correct critical taste. 

Under the head of the mistranslation of proper 
names, I censured the adoption of 4- kj& cr^ 
Kudsi Sherif, or the Noble Holy Place, as a proper 
mode of expressing 'ItpoaoXvjxa Jerusalem ; and, to 
judge from the tone of Professor Lee's remarks in 
its defence, p. 49 — 53, he must have been^strongly 
apprehensive of the dangerous and untenable 
ground on which he stood at the moment he 
committed them to paper. The fact is, he had 
the misfortune to find himself abandoned by his 
most powerful ally, the Baron Silvestre de Sacy^ 
and had no resource left, but to make a precipi- 
tate and covered retreat, and leave the field in 



60 

the undisturbed possession of the enemy. In 
No. I. of the Appendix to the Remarks, the dis- 
tinguished Oriental scholar just mentioned, after 
advising the Committee to reject the Mohammedan 
form (une forme Mohametane), ^~+£ Isa, and sub- 
stitute for it c j~j Jesu, the Christian form of ex- 
pressing the name of Jesus, proceeds to remark ; 
" I could also wish that the name of Jerusalem 
were retained, for which the translator has sub- 
stituted the modern phrase, ui^ <J*>«V *." Will 
the Professor reject this evidence, and maintain, 
as he does of the Tatar and other Turkish ver- 
sions, that it possesses " no authority whatever ?" 
But it is said, that " certain it is, nine out of 
every ten of them (the Mohammedans), would 
not know what place was meant by f-^y, Je- 

rushalimt." What then, we may ask, will they 
make of Ali Bey's version, Matt, xxiii. 37. Rev. 
xxi. 2. where, as was noticed in the Appeal, this 
very word p^*)j> t Jerushalim is exhibited ? But 
granting that they will not know what place is 
meant by this name until they are taught, still 
they are in no worse predicament in this case 

* Je voudrois aussi qu'on conservat le nom de Jerusalem, au- 
quel le traducteur a substitue l'expression moderne «-JWj-£> /j* j£« 
Appendix, p. 13. 

f Remarks, p. 50. 



61 
' than in regard to Lebanon (now h\\ J-^ The Snow 

Mountain), Jordan (now 4«j-*N The Passage), and 
a thousand other names of places altogether fo- 
reign to their present vocabulary. In order to 
be consistent, all such names should be commuted 
for those by which the places are designated in 
modern geography ; in which case, instead of 
Samaria, Ephesus, Colosse, Laodicea, Philadel- 
phia, Thyatira, &c, we shall read Neapolis or 
Naplous, Aiasalick, Denizli, Eski-hisar, Alah-shehr, 
and Ak-hisar. 

I had observed in the Appeal, that the word Je- 
rusalem is retained in the Arabic and Persic ver- 
sions, to which Professor Lee objects *, that " these 
versions were made for the use of Christians, with 
whom the word is familiar." At this distance of 
time, I do not recollect which were the precise 
versions I consulted ; but I may now be permitted 
to remark, that what is here objected is true only 
of those published in the Polyglott. The Arabic 
executed by Sabat, and the Persic by Henry 
Martyn, both of modern date, were principally 
designed for the use of Mohammedans ; yet, in 
neither of them do we meet with the term Kudsi 
Sherif. The same may be said of the Malay and 
Hindostanee versions ; the former of which has 
Jerusijaleim, and the latter fj-^i May it not, 

* Remarks, p. 50. 



62 

therefore, pertinently be asked, What good rea- 
son can be given that an exception should be 
made in favour of the Turks, which is not made 
in favour of other Mohammedans ? 

With respect to the theological reason alleged 
in the Appeal against " the Holy city," or " the 
noble Holy place," as a proper designation of Je- 
rusalem, I consider it to be little, if at all affected 
by the instance adduced from Matt. iv. 5. or even 
by xxvii. 53. At the time of the temptation, 
which the Evangelist describes, it was still " the 
holy city ;" and when the event referred to in the 
latter passage took place, its holiness was not 
actually, though it was virtually removed ; the 
actual desecration of the place being left to the 
influence of " the abomination of desolation, 
spoken of by Daniel the prophet," by which an 
end was put to the temple-worship and polity of 
the Jews *. This, it must also be observed, took 

* It was objected to the appellation " Holy City," that Jeru^ 
salem no longer possesses a greater degree of sanctity than any 
Other place on earth; the glory having departed from it when 
Christ passed through its gate on his way to Calvary, and the 
hour having come, when neither at Jerusalem, nor in any other 
particular spot exclusively, were the true worshippers to worship 
the Father, but in every place, incense and a pure offering is 
offered to his name, from the rising of the sun to the going down 
of* the same ; John iv. 21—24. Mai. i. 11. — See Appeal, p. 27,28. 
All this Professor Lee brands with the character of " farinse ;" 
but the reader will find the same things stated by Dean Prideaux, 



63 

place several years after the composition of the 
Gospel by Matthew, so that there could be no 
impropriety in his still calling Jerusalem "the 
holy city," although this appellation, in its strict 
and literal sense, be not given to it by any of the 
other New Testament writers. 

The assertion * that I found Mecca called 
c^L« ^jo Kuds Mobarika, in a Mohammedan 
book, I am sorry it is not at present in my power 
to corroborate otherwise, than by assuring Pro- 
fessor Lee, of my perfect conviction that I did so 
find it. Upwards of four years have now elapsed 

who thus observes on the celebrated prophecy of the Seventy 
Weeks. 

" After which (the Seventy Weeks) the Jews were no more 
to be the peculiar people of God, nor Jerusalem his Holy City, 
because then the economy which had been established among 
them was to cease, and the worship which he had appointed at 
Jerusalem was wholly to be abolished. 

" All this was accomplished at the death of Christ. For then 
the Jewish Church and the Jewish worship at Jerusalem were 
wholly abolished, and the Christian Church and the Christian wor- 
ship succeeded in their stead ; then the time which was determined 
upon the Jews for their being God's peculiar people, and upon 
Jerusalem, for its being his holy city, being fully expired, thence- 
forth began the kingdom of the Messiah, and instead of the Jews, 
all the nations of the world were called thereunto, and instead of 
Jerusalem, every place through the whole earth, where God 
should be worshipped in spirit and in truth, was made holy unto 
him."— Connection, Part L Book V. p. 378. Ed, Lond. 1749. 

* Appeal, p. 28. 



64 

since I made the remark, and not having taken 
any note of the passage in which the phrase oc- 
curred, it is impossible for me to answer his 
queries ; but should I find, in the course of my 
future reading, that it was a mistake, I shall em- 
brace the first opportunity of acknowledging it. 
I cannot help observing, however, that the Pro- 
fessor might have shewn me a little more indul- 
gence on this point, as it is obvious, from his own 
proving, that Jerusalem is not the only place to 
which ^^3 Kuds is applied. In the text of the 
Remarks *, indeed, the author says, in reference 
to its application to Mecca; " I believe it means 
no such thing, the phrase being universally applied 
by Oriental writers to Jerusalem ;" but in the note, 
containing his authorities for the assertion, we are 
distinctly told by the great Firuzabadi, that tf * it is 
also the name of a great mountain in Najd." In 
regard to the other statements and insinuations, 
introduced in connection with this subject, I will 
only say, that they are as groundless as they are 
unkind. 

* Page 52. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Refutation of Professor Lee's Arguments in Defence of the 
Epithets given by Ali Bey to the Deity, Scripture Usage. 
The Practice of Mohammedans. Style of the Koran. 
Turkish Taste. Quotation from Michaelis on this Subject. 
The licentious Consequences to he apprehended from the 
Application of the Professors Pule. The Sacred Nature 
of Scripture Phraseology. Usage of Christians in Turkey. 
The Principle injurious to the Sense, and opposed to the 
Manner of the Original. Incapable of Vindication, proved 
by the Practice of Ali Bey himself. Farther proved by 
the Practice of Professor Lee. Rejected by Professor 
Kieffer in the present Edition of the Turkish Bible. On the 
Use of the Word " Effendi" as a Divine Title. 

Having in the preceding Chapter examined Pro- 
fessor Lee's criticisms on the manner in which I 
translated the various epithets given to the Divine 
Being in the Turkish New Testament, and shewn, 
that the meanings which he would affix to them, 
so far from rendering their use m versions of the 
Christian Scriptures less objectionable, pointedly 
go to strengthen my argument against their adop- 
tion, let us now proceed to review the principles 
on which their defence is undertaken, and con- 
sider the influence which these principles, if ap- 



proved, would have on Biblical translations in 
general. 

The first ground on which the Professor endea- 
vours to rest the defence of such epithets, and 
such a periphrastical mode of translation, is, the 
usage of Scripture, " In the Hebrew Scriptures/' says 
he, " God is occasionally styled \vby El-yon, The 
Most High, and \vby btf El El-yon, The Most High 
God, and tDT\0 'H 1 ?** Elohe Marom, The High 
God" p. 20. " The phrase, then, Jltf 4lH Allah 
tadla, is the Scriptural phrase, which occurs times 
innumerable, in our own Bibles," p. 21. It is 
not introduced " in a way unknown to the phrase- 
ology of Scripture," p. 22. " The import of the 
phrase is, therefore, Mighty God, — a phrase with 
which every reader of the Bible is well acquainted," 
p. 24. " The Heb? % ew Bible, we hnoio, abounds with 
similar phraseology : if, then, the idiomatical ex- 
pressions of the original Scriptures, can be ren- 
dered in the Old Testament, by others which are 
equivalent to them, I am at a loss to conceive by 
what principle of criticism it is, that an European 
is to step in and say, with respect to the New, 
This is an unholy mass, a desecrated meretricious 
jargon, because * some of the phraseology peculiar 

* The reader must observe, that the peculiar application of the 
word "because," in the above passage, is Professor Xee's, not 
mine. I never gave any such character to Ali Bey's version on 
the ground here stated. 



67 

to the Old Testament has been adopted," p. 25, 
" The Exalted Creator, being all that is meant by 
^U; \jj\i Bari tadla. We have here, consequently, 
nothing unscriptural or unintelligible," p. 26. And, 
not to multiply quotations, " I believe we shall 
not be justified in condemning a version of the 
Scriptures, in every respect faithful to the ori- 
ginal," (Query?) " and conceived in phraseology 
common enough in the Hebrew Bible, because it is 
found to be a little at variance with the diction 
employed in our own," p. 35. 

That such phrases as the Most High, the Most 
High God, the High God, &c. do occur in the 
Old Testament, nobody ever doubted ; and the 
Professor might have added )vby DYrbi* Elohim 
El -yon, the Most High God; yiby mrv Jehovah 
El-yon, Jehovah Most High; £21 Ram, The High 
One; wby Ilaia, or Xtiby Ila-a, The Highest, and 
pv*?y El-yonin, the same, as the plural of jv6y El- 
yon. But what has all this to do with the argu- 
ment ? The question in debate does not refer to 
the use of Scripture phraseology, but to the in- 
troduction of this phraseology into a version, in 
passages where no corresponding terms occur in 
the original. This Ali Bey has done in instances 
almost innumerable ; and, strange to tell, his prac- 
tice is vindicated by Professor Lee ! But who does 
not perceive, that his argument by proving too 
much, proves nothing at all? According to the 

f 2 



68 

principle here laid down, we are at perfect liberty, 
not merely to introduce into versions of the New 
Testament words and phrases peculiar to the Old ; 
but, by parity of reasoning, such of those used in 
the New may be exhibited in a translation of the 
Old Testament, as do not express some idea pe- 
culiar to the Christian dispensation. Nor need 
we stop here : any periphrasis used for the name 
of God, or for any other name, in any one passage 
of Scripture, may, in this manner, be adopted, as 
the translator sees fit, in all, or any one of the 
other passages in which these names occur. Thus, 
by way of specimen, Gen. i. 1. " In the begin- 
ning the Lord God Omnipotent created the heavens 
and the earth ;" ver. 3. " And the Creator* said, 
Let there be light, and there was light;" chap, 
xli. 16. " The God of Peace shall give Pharaoh an 
answer of peace;" Exod. ii. 24. " And the Father 
of mercies heard their groaning, and the God of 
truth remembered his covenant," &c. Heb. i. I. 
" The Possessor of Heaven and Earth, who at sun- 
dry times, and in divers manners," &e. 2 Tim. 
i. 7. " For The Rock hath not given us the spirit 
of fear, but of power," &c. Thus, also, Matt, 
viii. 10. " I have not found so great faith, no not 
in Jeshurun" xxiii. 37. " O Ariel, Ariel, thou 
that killest the prophets," &c. Are not these 
" Scriptural phrases?" Have they not their "pa- 
rallels in other passages of Scripture ?" And 



69 

might they not be supposed, according to the 
taste of some, to improve the style of the pas- 
sages in which they occur? But the Professor's 
argument carries its own refutation along with it, 
and should have been permitted to pass altogether 
unnoticed, had it not been incessantly brought 
forward ; and that too, as it would seem, with a 
confident expectation, that it must necessarily se- 
cure the approbation of his readers. 

The next position that is taken in defence of 

the expression ,JUj 45J Allah tadla, is the practice 

of Mohammedans. It is laid down as a maxim, 
not to be controverted, that " the best Moham- 
medan writers alone can be relied on in questions 
of this kind ; and by their decisions must we be 
governed in this." " Now I will venture to affirm," 
adds Professor Lee, (and it may almost be deemed 
excusable in the public to regard his affirmations 
on " questions of this kind" as semi-oracular), 
" that in all the Mohammedan books of any value, 
whether written in the Arabic, Persic, Turkish, 

Hindostanee, or Malay languages, the word <JM 
Allah is ninety-nine times, at least, in every hun- 
dred, followed by the word ^J\*'S tadla,'' p. 21. 
Of the frequency with which this combination 
occurs in the compositions of Mohammedans, I 
am not altogether ignorant ; but that the nona- 
decimal mode of computation here insisted on, 



70 

will prove more successful in this instance than it 
does elsewhere in the Remarks, is not quite so 
indubitable. The Koran, I believe, will be al- 
lowed, at least by Mohammedans, to be " a book 
of some value ;" yet, from beginning to end of 
the original, I fear it would rather puzzle the 
Arabic Professor to find ten or even Jive pas- 
sages in which the combination ^U? *1H Allah 

tadla occurs, although it be a fact, that &\ Allah 
alone, unaccompanied by any adjunct whatever, 
is scattered, like the stars in the firmament, with 
the greatest profusion over almost every page of 
the volume. It is true, we are taught, Surah vii. 
172. that " God hath most excellent names," and 
that he ought to be invoked by the same; and 
the Mohammedans estimate their sum total at 
ninety-nine ; but the style of the Koran is, in this 
respect, nearly analogous to that of the Old and 
New Testament, the Divine Being commonly re- 
ceiving the appellations <d!l Allah, God, and c-^ 
Rabb, Lord ; while the other names are used de- 
claratively of his attributes, much in the same 
way as in our Scriptures, where God is described 
as merciful and gracious, long-suffering, &c. 

But my opponent may say, that he did not 
mean such ancient Mohammedan books. Per- 
haps he did not ; yet, I believe, most readers will 
agree with me in the opinion, that the style of a 



71 

book written much nearer the time of the com- 
position of our own Scriptures than any other, 
and a book too, forming the source of religious 
belief among the followers of the false prophet, 
ought to be preferred as a standard of appeal on 
a subject of this nature, before works written at 
a more recent period, and destitute of that autho- 
rity with which it is invariably invested. The 
style of the Koran is superstitiously regarded by 
Mohammedans as inimitable ; consequently, if our 
manner of expressing the names of God be in ac- 
cordance with the sobriety and uniformity which 
are found to predominate, on this head, in the 
pages of that book, it is absurd to pretend to 
adjudge the question by a lower scale. Yet, in 
what Surah, or what verse, do we meet with 

LZJJ& <—>^ Ginabi Izzet, ^jj\i <—>kf- Ginabi Bari, 

(j*- <-A^ Ginabi Hakk, <&)| cl^>. Hcezreti Allah, 

&c. &c. &c. ? These are all the progeny of a vitiated 
taste, sprung up like gaudy weeds, subsequent to 
the occupation of the fair fields of Arabic literature 
by the sons of Gog and Magog. But let us hear 
Michaelis : " The dominion of the Turks," says 
that learned writer, " which has been of longest 
duration, and is maintained even to the present 
day, has been most prejudicial to good taste; 
and it would be unjust to expect, that those 
Arabians, who live out of Arabia, among such an 



72 

ignorant people as the present race of Turks, 
should still be in possession of the same taste 
which their ancestors had upwards of twelve 
hundred years ago. Ignorance, barbarism, the 
form of government, and superstition, have all 
united to prove the bane of correct taste ; for I 
must observe, that the religion of the Turks is 
more superstitious than that of other Moham- 
medan sects, and is particularly defective in this, 
that they take those parts of the Koran literally, 
which ought to be explained figuratively. 

"I must also remind the reader, that the 
Turkish language is no dialect of the Arabic, but 
a complete foreign language ; consequently, no 
conclusions can be drawn from it, either with 
respect to Arabic or Hebrew taste : Farther, that 
the Bible, which agrees so closely with ancient Arabic 
taste, is sublime, indeed, in its poetry, but is in 
prose completely the reverse of what is called 
Oriental bombast. Its historical style is rather 
too simple, than too ornamented ; and the titles 
given to kings are as short and unpompous as 
possible; although, I must say, that we should 
do the Asiatics injustice, to conclude from their 
titles to the taste displayed in other parts of 
style. Even among ourselves, the style of the 
chancery of the Court is not exactly the best 
specimen of taste ; and I should conceive, that 
the European titles, High Potent, Most Illustrious, 



i 



73 

Alost Invincible, and sometimes Most Gracious, 
have sometimes as much of the hyperbolic and 
figurative as the Asiatic *." 

But to return to our more immediate subject : 
In the Appeal, p. 21, it was observed in the 
note, " that in the translation of our sacred 
books, the partizans of Ali Bey might learn a 
lesson from Mohammedans themselves ; for in the 

Persic interlineary version, the word <dS1 Allah 
is uniformly rendered by \*±- Chuda, God." Of 
this, however, Professor Lee takes no notice, and 
it is possible, that, with him, the book is not of 
any value ; but why has he not produced some 
specimens from the Malay, the Macassar, the 
Javanese, and the Chinese versions of the Koran ? 
Not that I would admit the propriety of adopting 
any such periphrastic phraseology in translating 
the Holy Scriptures for the use of Mohammedans, 
should it even be found to prevail in these books ; 
but it would be interesting to know, on what prin- 
ciples the translators have proceeded in this re- 
spect, although, I confess, I am rather disposed 
to doubt whether they have followed those 
avowed by the author of the Remarks. 

Granting, however, what I have no wish to dis- 
pute, that such usage, and such a variety of epi- 
thets as that exhibited on the pages of Ali Bey's 

* Preface to Erpenii Arabische Grammatik, p. 1. 






74 

New Testament, do really obtain in Moham- 
medan books of modern composition ; was not 
this very objection anticipated in the Appeal? 
V We may be told," it is there said, " that these 
epithets are in common use among Moham- 
medans ; but this is nothing to the point, unless 
we admit the principle, that a translator is at 
liberty to select any phrases from books of di- 
vinity that may happen to suit his taste, and sub- 
stitute them for the name of God. In which case, 
may we not expect to see an English version, in 
which, instead of the frequency of the name of 
God, we shall be entertained with all the variety 
of the high-sounding First Cause, Supreme Being, 
Bountiful Parent, Omnipotent Deity, &c. &c. Till 
such a consummation be effected, those who ap- 
prove of the principle, will find ample gratifica- 
tion in Harwood * ; while it will suffice for any 
who have no such desire, to be informed, that 
in the three first verses of John's Gospel, this 
gentleman has rendered Qeog by Supreme God, 
Divine Person, Supreme Being, and Deity\ /" 
Since we have our favourite modes of expression 
as well as the Mohammedans, what satisfactory 
reason can be assigned why they should be in- 

* Liberal Translation of the New Testament, London, 1768, 
in two vols. Svo. 
f Appeal, p. 21. 



75 

dulged by having their peculiar phraseology in- 
troduced into a translation of the Scriptures, 
while we are denied what would be equally con- 
genial to our taste, and the usages of our lan- 
guage ? And where is the line of demarcation to 
be drawn ? To what length may it be permitted 
to carry this principle of accommodation? Are 
the Turks the only people under heaven, at the 
shrine of whose theological vocabulary we are to 
sacrifice the sacred, venerable, and unbending 
phraseology of the oracles of God ? Why not gra- 
tify the Hindoos, the Malays, the Chinese, the 
Buriats, the Calmucks, and all the other nations 
and tribes for whom versions of the Holy Scrip- 
tures are provided, or providing, by a similar 
adoption of the varied consecrated modes in which 
they are taught, by their different systems of su- 
perstition, to express their ideas concerning the 
Divine Being ? I am supposing these modes of ex- 
pression to contain nothing absolutely erroneous, 
and that their adoption would have no other effect, 
than introducing, in their estimation, the name of 
the Supreme, " in a manner more reverential than in 
our own" translation *, and thereby rendering the 
style more gratifying to the minds of the natives. 
Between the principles entertained on this subject 
by Professor Lee, and those of the Abbe Dubois, 

* Remarks, p. 22. 



76 

there is so close and striking a connection that 1 
cannot withhold from the reader the following 
passage from one of that author's pitiable and in- 
consistent letters : " In fact," says he, " a trans- 
lation of the Holy Scriptures, in order to awaken 
the curiosity, and fix the attention of the learned 
Hindoos, at least, as a literary production, ought 
to be on a level with the Indian performances of the 
same kind among them, and be composed in fine 
poetry, a flowery style, and a high stream of 
eloquence, this being universally the mode in which 
all Indian performances of any worth are written *." 
Is it too much to suppose, that, upon this plan, 
by the time the Bible has circumambulated the 
globe, and picked upa u Court of Victory" here, 
and " the Great Disposer of Events" there ; a 
" Great Spirit" in one place, and " the Maker 
of the Soul" in another ; " Author of Happiness" 
in this region, and " Father of Battle" in that, it 
will furnish the curious with one of the most 
Proteus-like forms that ever adorned the shelves 
of a museum ? But would it not, at the same time, 
wring tears of woe and lamentation from every 
genuine Christian, to behold, attired like a har- 
lequin, that blessed volume, which has been 
handed down from age to age for so many cen- 
turies, in full possession of its grand character- 

* Letters on the State of Christianity in India, p. 41. 



! 



77 

istic features, notwithstanding the minor diver- 
sities of dialectical texture in which it has been 
habited ? That there is reason to apprehend some 
such result, must be obvious, not only from the 
unequivocal manner in which Professor Lee has 
avowed the legitimacy of the principle, but also 
from his publishing, without reprobation, the fol- 
lowing statement in the Appendix, No. II. " The 
Translator ought to conform to the received usages of 
the people for ivhom the work is designed ; and, in- 
deed, if a French translator, in rendering the 
name of God, were to employ the words, The 
Eternal, The Almighty, The Most High, could any 
real fault be found with him ? Certainly not : nei- 
ther is it by any means a Mohammedan teint that 
is given to the work by these forms, but rather a 
natural, local, and, consequently, a true colour, 
which is something very different*." 

* The whole paragraph in the original is as follows : " Quant 
a l'objection tiree de ce que les noms de Dieu, de Jems Christ, 
&c. sont ornes de differentes epithetes ou rendus par plusieurs 
circonlocutions : nous nous bornerons a faire remarquer que le 
traducteur a du se conformer aux usages re^us chez les peuples 
auxquels Touvrage etait destine : et en effet si un traducteur 
Francais s'etait servi, pour rendre le nom de Dieu, des mots, 
VEternel, le Tout-puissant, le Tres Haut ; serait-on admis a lui 
en faire un reproche fonde ? Non sans doute : aussi n'est ce point 
du tout une teinte Mahometane que ces formules donnent a 
1'ouvrage, mais bien une couleur naturelle, locale, et parconse- 
quent vraie, ce qui est tres different." P. (16.) 



78 

How different the ideas which all judicious 
translators of the Bible have entertained ! And 
what a mercy that our approved European ver- 
sions are not committed into the hands of such 
theorists to be rectified and modernized ! No 
small stir has been made in England by the late 
abortive attempt of Mr. John Bellamy, to furnish 
us with a new English Bible ; but whatever may 
be the philological delinquencies of that gentle- 
man, and, if any credit can be given to the Re- 
views, they are by no means trivial, I will venture 
to assert, that no such canon as that laid down in 
the above paragraph, is to be found within the 
limits of his critical code. It is a rule that would 
be scouted in translations of the Greek and Ro- 
man classics ; shall it then be tolerated in ex- 
ecuting versions of the Holy Scriptures ? 

The Bible, like the ancient Romans, is des- 
tined, as far as religious phraseology is concerned, 
to give language to the globe. It establishes its 
own peculiar dialect, widely as its conquests are 
extended. Scorning to descend to the corrupt 
and desecrated jargon employed to convey to the 
human mind impressions of the different systems 
of error, which it is one of its principal objects to 
eradicate, while it imparts new ideas on the most 
momentous of all concerns, it casts the languages 
in a new mould, and introduces, what Professor 
Lee not unaptly styles, " a new vocabulary of 



79 

religious phraseology." Like the celestial light 
which it communicates, 

" It gives to all, but borrows none." 

These remarks, however, be it observed, are 
designed to extend merely to such forms or modes 
of expression as are extraneous to the essential 
and grammatical characters of language. They 
embrace those only which have been brought into 
use in subserviency to local and national preju- 
dices, and have nothing corresponding to them in 
the texts of Scripture, as they successively pre- 
sent themselves for translation. It is an egregious 
blunder to imagine, that such combinations con- 
stitute what is properly called the genius of a lan- 
guage. To its religious idiom they may indeed 
belong, but not to its natural ; and, in the same 
manner as it admitted these to grow upon its 
branches, is it compatible with its nature and 
dignity to assume such novel forms as are not 
contrary to its fundamental principles. 

It is farther argued in defence of this practice 
of prefixing certain terms of respect and reverence 
to proper names, and using circumlocutory titles, 
instead of the words God and Lord, Jesus and 
Christy that it is not confined to Mohammedans, 
but is also general among the Christians in Turkey. 
That the Christians resident in that country use 
them in common conversation, and in such or- 

12 



80 

dinary compositions as they publish in the Turk- 
ish language, I freely admit; but that it is their 
established, or " general practice," to employ 
them in translations of the sacred Scriptures, is not 
quite so obvious as Professor Lee seems to imagine. 
With the occurrence of some of these titles in the 
Turkish Psalter, published in Greek characters, I 
was not previously unacquainted ; but I am yet 
to be informed, that they are introduced into the 
Turkish New Testament, printed in A rmenian cha- 
racters, and published by the Russian Bible So- 
ciety in 1819, the very year in which the Paris 
Testament appeared. We are told, Remarks, 
p. 21. " that the best Mohammedan writers alone 
can be relied on in questions of this kind ; and, by 
their decisions, we must be governed in this :" but 
the Professor appears to have found a still higher 
standard of appeal, after the Turkish Psalter had 
been pointed out to him, by his friend Mr. Re- 
nouard, for he affirms, p. 30, " If it can be shewn, 
that they (the Christians in Turkey) have adopted 
the same renderings with Ali Bey, that circumstance 
may, perhaps, be considered as decisive." It was 
well he inserted the doubtful particle, " perhaps," 
in this place ; for assuredly, whatever may be his 
individual opinion on the subject, such of our 
readers as are at all acquainted with the state of 
Christian knowledge among the Greeks of the 
present day, will be disposed to consider the 



81 

practice of " Turkish Christians/ 5 as entitled to 
very little weight in deciding this, or any other 
question connected with Biblical science. 

Professor Lee is also of opinion, that, because 
the objectionable modes of expression " are not 
peculiar to Mohammedans, the version under con- 
sideration, cannot, on account of their adoption, 
be termed Mohammedan, as Dr. Henderson has 
asserted," p. 31. Whatever I may have asserted 
on the subject of Ali Bey's version, of this I am 
certain, that no such assertion as that here im- 
puted to me is to be found in the Appeal : but, 
on the supposition I had made it, I must say, it 
seems rather a curious piece of logic by which 
we are conducted to the conclusion, that because 
Mohammedan phraseology may chance to be 
adopted by a people living in a Mohammedan 
country, and cruelly obliged, in many things, to 
conform to Mohammedan customs, it therefore 
ceases to be Mohammedan. 

There is only one argument more to which it is 
necessary to advert, viz. that the offensive words or 
phrases do not lower or injure the idea conveyed by the 
original. " Here," (substituting Court of Victory 
for Geoc, God) '< as before, no violence whatever 
is done to the sense of the original : the dignity 
of the person mentioned is by no means lowered*/ 1 

* Remarks, p. 24, 
Q 



82 

The reader will, no doubt, be surprised to find 
such a rule seriously urged in defence of Ali Bey ; 
for, upon the same principle, we might justify ten 
thousand deviations from the common phraseology 
of Scripture ; adopt, without the least hesitation, 
" The Deity, Supreme Parent of the Universe, Eter- 
nal Majesty, Divine Being" &c. of Harwood ; and 
even comply with the proposal of the Abbe Du- 
bois, to render the simple word wine, by " the 
juice of the fine fruit called grape *!" It may in 
general be admitted, that the use of the peri- 
phrastic epithets in question, does not materially 
afreet the sense of the passages in which they 
occur, in so far as the individual word for which 
they stand is concerned ; yet their exhibition, if 
any meaning be attached to them in the mind of 
the reader, may not unfrequently lead away his 
thoughts from the specific idea designed to be 
most prominently presented in these passages. 
Take for instance, Rev. xii. 10. " The kingdom 
of the Court of our Creator," which is the 
literal rendering of the words here used by Ali 
Bey, according to Professor Lee's own definition. 
Will not a contemplative mind naturally dwell 
upon the phrase, " The Court of our Creator?" 
And yet, as it is altogether extraneous to the text 
of Sacred writ, is it not most evident,, that, in 

* Letters, p. 34. 



83 

proportion as it is permitted to absorb the atten- 
tion, injury will be done to the original, con- 
sidered in its practical application and use ? But 
the fact is, all such modes of expression are chiefly 
exceptionable, on the ground, that they add to the 
sentiment conveyed by the original, and offend 
against the manner of the sacred writers ; it being 
as contrary to just principles of translation, to 
swell or heighten the style of an author, as it is 
to lower it, or render it less striking. And with 
respect to Biblical translation, in particular, the 
reader will, I am persuaded, not be displeased to 
see the rule of the Apostle Paul, though commu- 
nicated in the words of Harwood, in his transla- 
tion of 1 Cor. ii. 13. " Which blessings we pro- 
claim to the world, not with those studied arts of 
eloquence and polished diction, which human wisdom 
hath invented, but in the manner which the 
Holy Spirit dictates." 

Having thus, I trust, satisfactorily shewn the 
futility and absurdity of the arguments adduced 
by Professor Lee, in vindication of the introduc- 
tion of these honorary and periphrastic epithets 
into translations of the Bible, it may not be 
deemed irrelevant, to bring forward, in this place, 
the evidence of three witnesses, whose testimony, 
as to matter of fact, must be regarded as unexcep- 
tionable, and finally decisive on this subject. 

The first witness I shall produce is AH Bey him- 
g 2 



84 

self. Is it maintained, that by the omission of 
CLyfl*. H&zret, Illustrious, or as the Professor 
gives it, Presence, Shekinah, Lord, and Monsieur 
Desgranges, His Excellency, " the Oriental idiom 
would not have been so well preserved * ?" How 
then, we may ask, does it happen, that, liberal as 
our Turkish translator is in the use of it, there are 
times when he can equally well omit it, without, 
it is presumed, being guilty of any infraction of 
the rules of Oriental taste ? For example, although 
he generally prefixes this word to Xptaroc, and ex- 
hibits the form ^y^< eu-^ Hcczreti Mesiih, " The 

Illustrious Messiah," " Lord Messiah," " His Ex- 
cellency Messiah," or how you choose to give it, 
yet whole chapters occur in certain parts of the 
version in which it is scarcely ever used. Thus, 
in the three last chapters of Paul's Second Epistle 
to the Corinthians, the name Christ occurs by 
itself, in the original, not fewer than ten times ; 
yet, with the exception of one solitary instance, 
it is unaccompanied in the version by this de- 
corating adjunct. We are, nevertheless, told by 
M. Andrea de Nerciat, late Interpreter at Con- 
stantinople, and formerly in Syria and Persia, 
that " with respect to the honorific epithets which 
accompany the name of our Lord, nothing but ig- 
norance of the religious spirit of the Orientals in 

* Remarks, p. 29. 



85 

general, can render it possible for us not to feel 
the enormous want of decency, of which we should 
be guilty, in pronouncing this sacred name in a 
cold, dry manner ; and as our preachers never ex- 
press it without taking off their cap, in like manner 
the Orientals cannot write or articulate it, without 
prefixing the word ci^>- (Hcezret), or accom- 
panying it with the epithets ^JUS' (j*iiU CJLu ^>j 

(Merciful, Blessed, Sacred, Most High,) and a 
thousand others derived from the infinitude of the 
perfections which emanate from his Divine es- 
sence *." It is also affirmed by M. Caussin de 
Perceval, that " it would even be a species of ir- 
reverence to enunciate simply the name of Jesus, 
without adding to it eiya^ (Hcezret J, or saying 
*>wJI ^/^ (Jesus Christ) f ." The same thing is 
repeated by M. Bianchi and M. DesgrangesJ; 
yet Professor Lee tells us Ali Bey is "an Oriental 
translator of acknowledged talent and experience in 

* Appendix, No. V. p. (23). According to this Gentleman, 
the prefixing of the word Hcezret to the name of Jesus by the 
Orientals, is exactly similar to the removal of the cap by a certain 
class of preachers when they pronounce this name. The authority 
for both, Professor Lee will allow, is equally good. 

f II y aurait raeme une sorte d'irreverance a enoncer simple- 
ment le nom de Jesus, sans y joindre t * •> j.Jt~-, ou sans dire, 
^A^*JI ^j-^c Appendix, No. VI. p. (25.) 
" X Appendix, Nos. VII. and VIII. 



86 

his language*," although, to judge from his prac- 
tice, these names may at least be written without 
any such prefix, whatever may be done with the 
calotte in pronouncing them. The same remark will 
apply to the use of the adjunct ^JUS* tadla, " Su- 
preme" or " Most High," about which the Pro- 
fessor has written so much, and which after all, he 
has himself no hesitation in allowing might have 
been left out, without injuring the sense, though 
he has his doubts whether the translation would 
have been improved by the omission f. I shall 
beg, however, to call to his recollection, a passage 
in the Appeal, which he seems to have forgotten, 
in his surprise at my stupidity, in citing one of 
the Epistles to the Thessalonians, to prove that 
Crispus was a Mohammedan ! It is as follows : 
" I shall only further add on the subject of these 
epithets, that a curious specimen of the arbitrary 
and unequal manner of the translation is exhibited 
in the fourth chapter of the first Epistle of John. 
In the first eight verses the word Oeog occurs thir- 
teen times ; and, except in the last instance, is 
uniformly rendered as it ought to be, by /&] Allah; 
but, having come to the declaration, o 0eoc aya^r* 
kariv, God is love, the simplicity formerly observed 
is abandoned, and ^Ui* <sdh Allah tadla is adopted, 

* Remarks, p. 20. f Ibid. p. 22. 



87 

and employed ten times in the course of the fol- 
lowing eight verses *,■" Jn like manner, the phrases 
Ginabi Bari, Ginabi Hakk, Ginabi Izzet, Hakk 
Taala, are sometimes omitted for whole chapters, 
and even epistles ; why then introduce them into 
other chapters and other parts of the New Tes- 
tament ? 

We may, therefore, conclude from Ali Bey's 
own practice, that the use of such epithets and 
forms is altogether arbitrary, depending entirely 
on the whims of the translator, and not necessarily 
required by the genius of the language. This 
being the case, if they can be omitted twelve suc- 
cessive times without offending the eye or- the ear 
of the Orientals, they may in twelve hundred in- 
stances ; and, if so, it will be granted, that they 
may be dispensed with entirely in versions of the 
Holy Scriptures, to the simplicity of which, most 
of them are altogether foreign and repugnant. 

The next witness we shall subpoene to give evi- 
dence in the case before us, is the Professor of 
Arabic in the University of Cambridge. After spend- 
ing a number of pages in defence of the objection- 
able phrases, Professor Lee completely yields the 
point, by saying, p. 25, " In the present case, 
indeed," (where Ali Bey uses \±fjC u->li** Ginabi 
Izzet, Court of Victory,) " the word <x2l Allah, 

* Appeal, p. 26, 



88 

t)r %sJ& Tengri, would have expressed all that is in- 
tended by the word Geo?; but the variety of ex- 
pressions employed by Ali Bey, in these instances, 
cannot be construed by any acknowledged prin- 
ciples of criticism* as sufficient to warrant the 
suppression of the edition in question ; or to draw 
down those epithets, with which our Doctor has 
been pleased to disgrace it." Does not my oppo- 
nent here grant the very point I contend for ? And 
will not every one who trembles at the word of 
God, conceive, that if a translator has " expressed 
all that was intended by the words" of the original, 
he has done all that his duty requires ? To do 
more, is to add to the word of the Lord ; and by 
what acknowledged principles of criticism this is 
to be tolerated, I am yet to be informed. 

But not to insist further on this admission: if 
" the word M Allah be ninety- nine times, at least, 
in every hundred, followed by the word ^J\m tadla 

in all Mohammedan books of any value, whether 
written in the Arabic, Persic, Turkish, Hindos- 
tanee, or Malay languages," and this be produced 
as a fact to prove the necessity of adopting such a 
combination in those translations of the Holy 
Scriptures which are to be circulated among Mo- 
hammedans, how comes it that Professor Lee 
could allow versions in the Malay and Hindostanee, 
two of the very languages here specified, to pass 



89 

through his hands without rectifying them accord- 
ing to the decisions of those by whom " we must 
be governed in this ?" In the former of these ver- 
sions 'Allah is uniformly employed throughout to 
express the word Bsoc, and never once receives the 
adjunct taTalqj ( JUi' tadla, " Most High") except 
where the corresponding word v^iatoq Highest, 
Most High occurs in the original, and then it is 
properly added. Nor does it occur in the Hindos- 
tanee except in similar cases, and in Rom. ix. 5. 
where it is given as a translation of o ktr\ iravruv 
Geoc God over all. It is the same with the other 
epithets, and even with <^j.-a^ HcEzret^ which we 
were prepared to expect must certainly be found 
in the Hindostanee, this language, as exhibited in 
the version before us, consisting of a vast propor- 
tion of Arabic and Persic .words ; but I find it 
nowhere excepting on the title page, which, of 
course, is no part of the sacred Text. We may 
be told, that the Professor did not prepare these 
versions, but only edited them. Be it so : but 
did he make no remonstrance on the subject? 
Did he not produce his strong reasons to shew 
that except the bald and plain manner in which 
the name of God had been expressed, were cor- 
rected by the addition of the almost universally 
accompanying adjunct tadla, the versions would 
be rejected with contempt by the Mohammedans 
of Hindostan, and the Indian Chersonese ? Did 






90 

he not at least endeavour to convince his constitu- 
ents, that it was the height of arrogance in Henry 
Martyn " quietly to sit down" at Calcutta and 
Dinapore, and the Malay translators at Batavia, 
and " determine according to their principles of 
sacred taste, what every Mohammedan" in those re- 
gions " ought or oaght not to consider as a term 
of respect," although they must have known that 
their determination was diametrically opposite to 
the taste and practice of their unbelieving neigh- 
bours ? It is not impossible, however, that at the 
period when the Professor brought those versions 
through the press, his critical principles had not 
reached that degree of maturity which they now 
appear to have attained ; and it remains to be seen 
whether he will omit the phrases in question in 
the editions of the Persian New Testament and 
Psalms, translated by Henry Martyn, and the Book 
of Genesis, done by a Mohammedan, which, ac- 
cording to the Reports of the Bible Society, he is 
at present editing. If he be serious in maintain- 
ing that the principles laid down in his remarks 
are not merely to be held in theory, but that they 
ought to be reduced to practice, may we not ex- 
pect to be furnished ere long with a correct spe- 
cimen of the genuine Persian style of Biblical 
translation ? 

But we come to the last and most important 



91 

witness, Professor Kieffer *, the Editor of Ali Bey's 
Turkish version. If it can be fairly made out to 
the public that this gentleman is at present acting 
in perfect opposition to our fine-spun theory of 
accommodation to Mohammedan or Oriental taste, 
and that he is actually throwing out the flowery 
Court of Victory, Exalted Creator, Court of Truth, 

• Here I beg leave most pointedly to deny the charge brought 
against me by the Eclectic Reviewer (Art. vi. June, 1824) that I 
had either Professor Kieffer, or Professor Lee in contemplation 
when I spoke of " versions having been undertaken or carried 
through the press by men equally disqualified by their previous 
habits or their present acquirements for putting so much as their 
little finger to such a work." Of the Parisian Professor I should 
be sorry ever to suffer a word to escape my lips or my pen that 
could possibly be construed into want of respect for his talents, 
or a withholdment of my just esteem on account of the amability 
of his private character, and his distinguished and indefatigable 
exertions in promoting the spread of Christian truth. From all I 
know of him I believe I may confidently assert, that, had he been 
left to bring out the obnoxious edition with that circumspection 
which his own good sense would have prescribed as necessary in 
conducting a work of such importance ; had he not been driven 
on with " rather undue haste ;" and had not express restrictions 
been laid upon him to depart in no instance from the text of the 
manuscript, the public would never have been troubled either with 
my Appeal, the developement of Professor Lee's principles of 
translation, or the present continuation of the controversy. That 
the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society laid any 
such restrictions upon him, is more than I believe ; but, that his 
hands were thus tied down, to the no small detriment of the work, 
is what positive information warrants me to affirm. 



92 

8$c. and is contenting himself with the sober ex- 
pressions <*2l Allah and Cj Eabb, may we not con- 
sider the point as conceded in fact, whatever 
may be said or written to the contrary ? Yet such, 
reader, is positively the case. I have lying be- 
fore me not fewer than nineteen sheets of Ali Bey's 
Turkish version of the Old Testament, which he is 
now bringing through the press, and on comparing 
the text which it exhibits with that printed in 
Berlin, I find in no one instance the objectionable 
periphrases substituted for the Divine names, but 
simply the corresponding Arabic words Allah and 
Rabb throughout. But, in order to enable the 
learned to judge for themselves, I shall here insert 
the first ten verses of the first chapter of Genesis, 
containing the text of both editions, with the ac- 
companying translations in parallel columns : 

BERLIN EDITION. PARIS EDITION. 

&}yo ^Joj g&ji ejJJb 6&>jj}\ ^Jj^j iS&>) d$}p 

^4; ^H^P *^ 4?^ */**! -/# J s**3> ^^ 

JUS *ill j/jj r* u5*^J j?A* <-£**£* <jy*^^ O^^tJ *M|j "•" 



93 



jilli-T^ ^JLI *JUa«j <X^ 
^/ l/9 *F^ ^^J 



S&' 



i^S^J 1 ^s^ 3 \ 



+&jj> *&xd$j)\ \£JSya a&Jut) 
^jI ^jjsJ^o Ks}y° &&y>^^ 

^jl o jJuLmjI <*^*j£, \s}y* 

^j ^y <k^ .j^ c^-j a 

*0^4> ^JUo <c,b ^Jo'T 1 
lS^jS y, ^^T LLAJiy ^JU? 



^ ^1 *^1 ^U^ f l^ 



^iUj u5>4 



94 



BERLIN EDITION. 

In the beginning the Ex- 
alted Creator created the 
heavens and the earth. 
And the earth was empty 
and vacuous : on the sur- 
face also of the abyss was 
darkness, and the Spirit of 
God (Tengri) moved tre- 
mulously on the surface of 
the waters. Then God Most 
High (Allah Tadla) said : 
let light be, and light was. 
The Court of the Creator 
also saw that the light was 
beautiful, and the Court of 
the Creator separated the 
light from the darknesses. 
And the Court of the Crea- 
tor named the light, day, 
and the darkness, night; 
and evening and morning 
having been, were the first 
day. And the Co uri of the 
Creator also said : let there 
be an expanse in the midst 
of the waters, that it may 
separate the waters from 
the waters. The Supreme 
God ( Tengri Tadla) then 
formed an expanse, and se- 
parated the waters that 
were under the expanse, 
10 



PARIS EDITION. 

In the beginning God 
created the heavens and 
the earth. And the earth 
was empty and vacuous ; 
over the abyss also was 
darkness ; and the Spirit of 
God moved tremulously 
over the waters. And God 
said : let light be, and light 
was. God also saw that the 
light was beautiful, and God 
separated the light from 
the darknesses. And God 
named the light day, and 
the darkness night ; and 
evening and morning hav- 
ing been, were the first day. 
And God also said : let 
there be an expanse in the 
midst of the waters, that it 
may separate the waters 
from the waters. God then 
formed an expanse, and se- 
parated the waters that 
were under the expanse, 
from the waters which were 
above the expanse ; and it 
was so. And God gave to 
the expanse the name of 
Heaven; and evening and 
morning having been, were 
the second day. Then God 



from the waters that were 
above the expanse; and 
it was so. And the Supreme 
Verity gave to the expanse 
the name of Heaven; and 
evening and morning hav- 
ing been, were the second 
day. Then the Exalted 
Creator said : let the waters 
that are under heaven be 
collected to one place, and 
let the continent appear; 
and it was so. And the 
Supreme God ( Tengri 
Taala) called the name of 
the continent Earth, and 
the assemblage of waters he 
named Sea; and the Ex- 
alted Creator saw that it 
was good. 



said : let the waters that 
are under heaven be col- 
lected to one place, and let 
the continent appear; and 
it was so. And God called 
the name of the continent 
Earth, and the assemblage 
of waters he named Sea ; 
and God saw that it was 
good. 



And is it possible, the reader will ask, that Pro- 
fessor Kieffer should not only have ventured thus 
to act in direct opposition to the declared opinion 
of Professor Lee, and Dr. Pinkerton, and General 
Macauley, but that he should still persist in so 
acting notwithstanding the overpowering autho- 
rity of Baron Silvestre de Sacy, and Professor 
Jaubert, and Garcin de Tassy, and Langles, and 
Andrea de Nerciat, and Professor Caussin de Per-* 
ceval, jun. and M. Bianchi, and M. Desgranges, 



96 

and M. Petropolis, and M. Ermian, &c. &c. &c. ? 
Can he have been so infatuated as to depart from 
the general practice of the " churches of Turkey,'* 
with the Metropolitan of Angouri at their head ? 
Has he really had the arrogance to correct " an 
Oriental translator of acknowledged talent, and 
experience in his language ?" Has he committed 
himself by such an omission of words as " implies 
a high degree of disrespect in the estimation of 
every Turk, whether Mohammedan or Chris- 
tian* ?" And has all this been done, have all these 
authorities been slighted, and all these considera- 
tions set aside, merely to bring the style of the 
Turkish version into accordance with " the sacred 
taste of an European, not very profoundly skilled 
in these matters ?" 

It would be superfluous to say more on the sub- 
ject. Not only is the adoption of the objection- 
able epithets perfectly at variance with the practice 
of the most approved translators of ancient and 
modern times, but it is only partially and most 
inconsistently and arbitrarily used by Ali Bey 
himself; it is attempted to be vindicated in theory, 
but is rejected in practice by Professor Lee ; and 
Professor KiefFer has marked it with the broad 
seal of his reprobation. Will its defence be again 
undertaken ? 

* Remarks p. 15P. 



97 

In concluding this chapter I may be permitted to 
add, on the application of the word ^jJLJl Effendi to 
the Deity, which Professor Lee, sheltering himself 
under the authority of the Metropolitan of An- 
gouri, maintains to be proper, that, however his 
nervous system may remain unaffected by " the 
frightful contortions of the well-educated Persian," 
and his mind uninfluenced by " the fears expressed 
by a Persian of lower attainments*," the French 
Editor does not appear to possess any such unen- 
viable degree of insensibility : for in Gen. xv. 2, 
where, in the Berlin edition of Ali Bey, the patri- 
arch Abraham addresses Jehovah by $\ ^sXi) ^ I 
" O my Effendi God," that now printing in Paris 
exhibits the word f Cj llabb &\ J, ^j " O Lord 
God." 

* Remarks, p. 48. 



H 



CHAPTER V. 

Application of the Words d\\ Allah and u_>. Rabb to Christ, 
Groundless Assertion of Professor Lee relative to Cs*Jt 
El-Rabb. His Hypothesis respecting l^j. Rabb as exclu- 
sively applicable to God, equally without Foundation. Its 
Use with Respect to merely human Masters, proved from 
Classic Arabic Writers, Concession of Professor Lee. How 
the Argument affects the Subject of our Lord's Divinity. 
Passages adduced in Illustration from Ali Bey. 

It was observed in the Appeal, p. 25, that " the 
names God and Lord, and Jesus and Christ, are fre- 
quently interchanged in Ali Bey's version " with- 
out any thing like a scrupulous adherence to the 
order of the original." I also remarked, that " it is 
easy to be perceived, how much influence this 
must have on the doctrine of the divinity of 
Christ ;" and stated, in a note, that, " in the Acts 
of the Apostles alone, I had found not fewer than 

twenty-Jive passages in which t&\ God, ^J\jC <dl! the 
Supreme God, ^j c-taf- Divine Majesty, or ^J\x> j^ 
Supreme Verity, are substituted for l->j Lord; yet 
in almost all these passages the designation refers, 
not to God, absolutely considered, as when thus 






99 

changed it exclusively does, but to our blessed 
Saviour, who, as Mediator, is made both Lord and 
Christ, and, on this account, is called Kvpioe, /car 
hfyyfw, in the New Testament." 

Of that part of the charge which respects the 
interchange of the names Jesus and Christ, no par- 
ticular notice is taken in Professor Lee's Remarks; 
and we are left to infer, that it is perfectly allow- 
able in a translator of the New Testament to ren- 
der the word Jesus by Christ and Christ by Jesus, 
just as it may happen to strike his fancy. Nay, 
we are distinctly told, p. 36, " The scrupulous 
adherence to the order of the original, upon which 
he (the Author of the Appeal) lays so much stress, 
does not enter into our principle of interpretation ; 
we only expect to see the sense and bearing of the 
original accurately expressed in the language of 
the translation." The reader will perceive that the 
words here printed in Italics are taken from the 
Appeal, where they are used, not in relation to 
any grammatical construction of words, but to the 
very interchange in question; the marking with 
Italics is the Professor's own, and was, no doubt, 
designed to give an emphasis of reprobation to the 
canon, that wherever the words Jesus, Christ, &c. 
stand in the original, words exactly corresponding 
should appear in the translation. Whether this 
canon of translation, or his " principle of interpre- 
tation," will more commend itself to the impartial 

h 2 



100 

and judicious Scripture critic, and indeed to all 
who have any reverence for the word of God, I 
leave others to judge, and dismiss the subject for 
the present, in order to give due prominency to 
that part of the charge which affects the divinity 
of Christ. 

To such as are at all acquainted with the grand 
points at issue between Christians and Moham- 
medans, it is almost superfluous to point out the 
paramount importance of putting into the hands 
of the latter, a faithful and correct translation of 
the Christian Scriptures. For, whatever " can- 
dour" and "liberality" Professor Lee may have 
found in those of them with whom he has had in- 
tercourse, qualities diametrically the reverse are 
universally complained of by such as come into 
daily contact with them, as most conspicuously 
displaying themselves whenever the peculiar doc- 
trines of the Gospel are made the subjects of dis- 
course. Against those passages of the New Tes- 
tament in particular, which teach the Sonship and 
Divinity of the Lord Jesus, their cavillings and 
rancour are constantly directed ; and, if any dis- 
crepancies are found to obtain in the renderings 
of these passages, they are sure to seize on them, 
and turn them into the greatest handle against the 
Gospel of Christ. In what an awkward predica- 
ment then must a Missionary be placed, when 
disputing with a follower of the Arabian prophet, 



101 

who is enabled by a false version of the Scrip- 
tures, to repel one of his strongest arguments, 
drawn from the genuine and unsophisticated sense 
of these Scriptures, in support of the Divine na- 
ture of our Saviour ! The advocate of Christianity 
may attempt, as he pleases, to account for the 
diversity of reading ; it will all amount to nothing 
in the view of his unbelieving antagonist, who 
will, on no consideration, permit a weapon to be 
wrested out of his hands, which, he finds, he can 
wield to so much advantage against those, whom, 
after the example of his leader, he brands with 
the name of Associants. 

That the version of Ali Bey exhibits renderings 
of a description suited to aid the Mohammedan 
assailant in discussions of this nature, proofs were 
given in the Appeal, which have been deemed 
perfectly conclusive by all, as far as my know- 
ledge goes, excepting the Author of the Remarks, 
who, after devoting nearly twenty pages of his 
book to the investigation of the subject, leaves 
the reader in a state of bewilderment, from which, 
to say the least, he was perfectly free when he 
commenced the perusal of them. 

But, it will be asked, why this pertinacity in 
contending for that which, after all, makes nothing 
for the theory assumed in the Appeal? Why en- 
deavour to demonstrate, that by making use of 

4JI Allah, or some word or periphrase descriptive 



102 

of absolute Deity, Ali Bey has excluded from the 
passages in question all idea of the one Mediator, 
when no attempt has previously been made to 

shew, that the word u^ Rabb, " Lord," will be 
understood by the Mohammedans as signifying 
our Lord and Saviour? Professor Lee boldly 
asserts, that if I had made any such attempt, I 
should have failed: "the fact," says he, p. 37, 
being, " that the Mohammedans understand it as 
applicable to none but God. To have rendered 

the word Kvpioe, therefore, by ^ would not have 
restricted the meaning in any one of the passages 
alluded to, to the person of our Lord ; but would 
have left it just as it now is, where the word afil 
&c. have been used. Dr. Henderson's expedient, 
would, therefore, have been ineffectual." It will 
be perceived, that it is here laid down as indis- 
putable, that M Allah, " God," and ^ Rabb, 
" Lord," are perfectly convertible terms, both 
applying to none but God alone. Upon this as- 
sumption, and upon the Professor's misconception 
of the real bearing of the question, proceeds the 
whole tenor of his Remarks, pp. 34 — 44, 86, 87, 
109 — 112 ; and, perplexed, as he evidently appears 
to have been, by what he did not comprehend, 
we cannot wonder at his repeatedly assuring his 
readers, that I have argued entirely upon the other 
side of the question from that which my position 



103 

was intended to establish. Nor, for the same 
reason, is it possible to be in the least degree 
angry at the sarcastic manner in which he speaks 
of my qualifications, p. 38, or the abuse with which 
he loads me in thus concluding the subject: " I 
ask, can any translator, on any principles, expect 
to escape the lash of such a Homeromastix as this 1 
Where is the society of men, who can satisfy the 
requirements of such an appellant, who bidding- 
defiance to every principle of criticism, feels, or 
thinks he feels, the ground firm under him, and 
then proceeds to arraign, condemn, and execute, 
for the pure love of truth ?" P. 43. 

Leaving the reader to ponder these queries, let 
us now revert to the point in dispute, and inquire, 
whether it really be a case so clearly made out as 
Professor Lee would have it be believed, that Cj>j 
Rabb, " Lord," can be used of none but God? 
And here it may not be amiss to examine what he 
has to say relative to Lj>JI Err abb, or as he pro- 
nounces it El Rabb, in the two notes at the foot 
of the 37th page. In the latter of these notes, 
we have the following lexicographical definition 
of the word by the celebrated author of the 

Kamoos ; J^ y. *U1 jA jib 1 f 1h ±jJ) " El Rabb, 
with the article El, is applied to none but God, 
(to whom) be power and glory." The question 
then, as far as it regards El Rabb, may be con- 
13 



104 

sidered as for ever set at rest, for here is Oriental 
authority of the very highest order ; and to this 
authority I desire to bow with the most submis- 
sive reverence. But can it be deemed irrelevant 
to put the question to Professor Lee, why he made 
this quotation ? Did he suppose that any person 

could possibly doubt, that C-j. Rabb, " Lord," 
with the article J! El prefixed, making it CjA\ El 
Rabb, " The Lord," could be applied to none but 
God, just as all or ell] Ilah, " a god," with the 
article prefixed, making it aBl Allah, " God," never 
can be applied to any but the Supreme Being? 
The debate is not (and it is of essential import- 
ance that the reader should know it is not) 
about the application of el^Ji %l Rabb, " The 
Lord," /car Qoyjiv, but about £j. Rabb, without 

the article to give it this restrictive definiteness 
of signification. Yet, as if I had been so ab- 
surd as to maintain the contrary, we are told, 
p. 38, that " in the Arabic, Persic, and Turkish, 

aBl \tfjj vli^ 9<J^* u*- V&fi & c - 0- e - El Rabb, 
Hakk Taala, Ginabi Bari, Allah,) apply to none 
but God." Again, p. 39, " He should have shewn 
that some such words as <w^>-U ? <x^ ,lcl or the like 
had been used, when the context manifestly calls 
for C-jJI 9 M (El Rabb, Allah) or some equivalent 
term." I will not multiply quotations, but simply 



105 

refer to pages 41, 42, 111, 112, of the Remarks, 
for further proof, that my opponent argues, as if 
the question turned upon the definite form of the 
word, whereas it refers entirely to its indefinite 
form. Did he not perceive, that, throughout the 
whole of this argumentation, he was only beating 
the air? It is possible he did not; yet, the vacil- 
lating manner in which he treats the subject, 
makes it evident that he had nothing of a sub- 
stantial form to grapple with, and this he appears 
at times, powerfully, though indistinctly, to have 
felt in his own mind. 

But, what shall we say to the concluding sen- 
tence of the preceding note? " It should be ob- 
served, however," says Professor Lee, " that in 
nine places out of every ten, at least, the word Kv- 
piog, when applied to our Lord, is rendered by 
CjJ) (El Rabb) in Ali Bey's version;" p. 37. 

Assuredly, if this can be satisfactorily made out, 
no one will ever dare to assert in future, that this 
version of Ali Bey does not inculcate the doctrine 
of our Lord's divinity. For, if it can be made to 
appear, that in not fewer than two hundred and 
seventy passages of the New Testament, the word 
Kupioe is incontrovertibly applied to Christ, and 
that out of these two hundred and seventy passages, 
Ali Bey renders it in two hundred and forty three, 
at least, by the word C->J) El Rabb, which, 
we have the authority of the Kamoos for affirming, 



106 

is applied to none but God ; it necessarily follows, 
that his version exhibits such an overwhelming 
mass of evidence in support of that doctrine as 
must cover its enemies with eternal confusion. 
And, as we are positively informed by the Pro- 
fessor, that this version is ?.? in every respect faith- 
ful to the original* ," it as incontestably follows, 
that all other versions are chargeable with the 
blackest infidelity on this all-momentous and fun- 
damental point ; it being a fact, that in no other 
version in existence, as far as I know, does one 
half of these passages contain a word for Kvpiog, 
which " can be applied to none but God." Is it 
not to be regretted that this important discovery 
was not made at an earlier period? How many 
heart-sickening controversies it would have pre- 
vented! And what trouble it would have saved 
such men as the Bishop of St. David's, and Drs. 
Magee, Wardlaw, Pye Smith, and many others, 
whose distinguished talents might have been 
employed with so much advantage in the defence 
of some other important part of the Christian 
system ! Faithful to the Original ! every lover of 
sacred truth will exclaim, Where then is the in- 
valuable Greek manuscript preserved, from which 
AH Bey made his version, and which applies to 
our Lord in two hundred and forty three passages, 

* Remarks, p, 35. 



107 

— a word, the faithful rendering of which consists 
of one that " can be applied to none but God ?" 

Before indulging, however, in further specula- 
tion on this interesting topic, it may be proper to 
ascertain the accuracy of Professor Lee's compu- 
tation ; for, if he has committed any mistake in 
making the count, it will proportionally lessen 
the promised result. Now, what will the reader 

think, if it should turn out, that Cj>J\ El It abb 

does not occur exactly with so much frequency 
in Ali Bey's version as a translation of Kvpiog when 
applied to our Lord? The least he can say is, 
that the Professor was too hasty in estimating the 
number. But what if, instead of nine times out of 
every ten, at least, the word in question should not 
occur once out of every ten ? What, if it should not 
be found once in every hundred ? It will in this case 
be thought, that he was highly reprehensible in 
hazarding so bold and inconsiderate an assertion, 
and supporting it with all the weight of his pro- 
fessional character. How then must the reader 
be filled with astonishment, when, as the result of 
a careful collation of the passages, he is informed, 
that, instead of occurring two hundred and forty- 
three times, which it must, according to Professor 

Lee's statement, the word tL\ll El Rabb is, in 
Ali Bey's version, applied to our Lord only in one 
solitary instance ! This instance occurs, Acts i. 21. 



108 

H-^ % j^ c ul>j*»- HcBzreti Isa El Rabb, i. e. as I 
should originally have given it, " The Illustrious 
Jesus the Lord ;" but, according to my oppo- 
nent, " The Lord Jesus God." In what manner 
are we to account for this blunder ? 

But, it will be perceived, that it is not merely 
on the use of the emphatic form CjJ) El Rabb 
that Professor Lee rests his argument ; he assigns 
even to Cj. Rabb, without the article, the same 
restrictive signification. In proof of this, besides 
the passage already cited from page 37, we may 
refer to the following : " We have already seen, 
that by the word Cj. Rabb, the Mohammedans 
do not understand our Lord Jesus Christ, but God, to 
the exclusion of every other Being:" p. 86. And 
again ; " It has already been shewn, that whether 
the translator had used C-*. Rabb or AJjl Allah, the 
Mohammedan reader would have understood none 
but the Supreme God:" p. 110. Now, assuming for 
a moment that this statement is correct, let us 
enquire what are the conclusions to which it will 
conduct us ? 

The first and most obvious conclusion at which 
we must arrive is this ; that, as far as Moham- 
medans are concerned, the version of Ali Bey 
contains two hundred and seventy passages in which 
Jesus Christ receives a title which is applied to 
God, to the exclusion of every other being. But 



109 

no person acquainted with the Greek original will 
take it upon him to affirm, that it contains cor- 
responding proofs of the divinity of our Saviour, 
at all amounting to any thing like this. The Paris 
edition of the Turkish New Testament, therefore, 
if put into the hands of Mohammedans, will, in 
numerous passages, teach a doctrine which is not 
taught in the corresponding passages of the ori- 
ginal ; and, if so, it must be perfectly unwarrant- 
able in the Bible Society to distribute a single 
copy without note and comment, or, at least, 
without employing a living instructor to inform 
the Turks, that they are not to understand the 
name C->. Rabb, as we are told it has hitherto 
been universally and properly understood amongst 
them, as exclusively applicable to God; but, that 
they are merely to consider it as denoting au- 
thority or superiority in the person receiving it ; 
the context affording the only criterion by which 
to judge of the nature of the person, or whether 
that nature be human or divine. 

The second consequence resulting from Profes- 
sor Lee's premises, is the imperfect knowledge 
which Ali Bey possessed of the language into 
which he translated the Bible ; for, if he knew, 
that by the word Cj. Rabb, the Mohammedans 
would understand none but God, how did he come 
to apply that word to Jesus Christ in passages 
which alone refer to his human nature, or which, 



110 

from the circumstances of the context, necessarily 
exclude all idea of divinity from the minds of 
those who gave him this title ? Generally, through- 
out the Gospels, when our Saviour is addressed 
by Kvpie, where there is not the slightest reason 
to conclude, that those who made the address 
had any conception of his Divine nature, AH 
Bey renders it by Cjj b Ya Rabb, " O Lord'' 

Not to multiply instances, let us take the case of 
the woman of Samaria. On being told by Christ, 
who, she had every reason to believe, as an entire 
stranger, could not come by the knowledge of the 
fact in any ordinary way, that she had had five 
husbands, and that the person at present living 
with her was not her husband, she accosted him 
Z-*. b Ya Rabb, i. e. according to the construction 

which my opponent says a Mohammedan must 
put upon it, "OGod! I perceive thou art a pro- 
phet !" But let us try how this exclusive sense of 
\L>j Rabb will apply in other passages of Ali Bey's 

version. Matt, xxviii. 6. " Come see the place 
where God lay." John xx. 2. " They have taken 
away God out of the sepulchre." 1 Cor. vi. 14. 
" And God both raised up God, and will also raise 
up us by his own power." xi. 26. " For as often 
as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do 
shew the death of God till he come." Acts ix. 1. 
" And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and 



Ill 

slaughter against the disciples of God." John 
vi. 23. " After that God had given thanks." xi. 2. 
" It was that Mary who anointed God with oint- 
ment," &c. But, of all the passages in which it 
is used, none will, on the principle in question, 
more, effectually scandalize a follower of the false 
prophet, than Acts ii. 36. " Therefore, let all the 
house of Israel know assuredly, that the Court 
of the Creator hath made that same Jesus 
whom ye crucified, both God and Christ." .What ! 
he will exclaim, do you imagine I can be so in- 
fatuated, as to hesitate for a moment, whether or 
not I should believe in a made God? The argument 
of Marracci, that the supreme name of Lord, which 
is only proper to Christ as God, was also com- 
municated to his human nature on account of the 
hypostatic union by which the things properly 
belonging to the one nature are predicated of the 
other *, as it certainly will not satisfy a Moham- 

* Refutationes in Suram V. Alcorani, p. 202. The passage 
as thus explained by Marracci, as well as the others above quoted, 
might seem to admit of vindication from the text, Acts xx. 28. 
" The church of God which he hath purchased with Ms own 
bloody" but few are ignorant of the disputed nature of the reading 
Beoq ; and the remark of the great Athanasius pertinently applies 
to them all : Ov^ayuou £e cujia Qeov Bttfa aaptcoe TrapacJe^wfcaffiv ai 
ypcuftcu, rj Qeov dta crap/cog iradovra /cat avacrravra' 'Apeiaviov ra 
roiavra ToXfirjfjLara. " The Scriptures have no where given the 
expression, blood of God, as separate from the flesh [i. e. the 
human nature], or, that God through the flesh suffered and rose 



112 e " 

medan, so, I believe, it will not be deemed con- 
clusive by any Christian who impartially weighs 
the import and bearing of the passage. The idea 
of making or constituting Christ what he really 
was and had been from eternity, is altogether a 
palpable absurdity ; but that, as Mediator, he was 
constituted in his one complex person, Lord, i. e. 
Possessor and Ruler of all things, is a doctrine 
plainly and distinctly taught in Scripture. But 
it is not merely to our Lord that the word lZj>. 
Rabb is applied by Ali Bey, and that as nearly 
synonymous with Master; e. g. John xiii. 13, 14. 
He also uses it of the angels ; thus, Acts x. 4. 
Cornelius, addressing the angel, whom he saw 
coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius, 
said, Cj. \i'X & " Ne war ya Rabb" " What is it 
Lord?" where the word is used in the same sense 
with the Greek Kvpu, merely as indicatory of a 
superior, without necessarily including the idea 
of divinity. 

Once more, if u_>. Rabb will not, and ought not 
to be understood of any but God absolutely con- 
sidered, it follows that Ali Bey's version, to the 
extent of its circulation, must terminate the long 
agitated question relative to the propriety of 

again: such expressions are the daring attempts of Arians." 
Contra Apollinarium. See Dr. Pye Smith's Script. Test. Vol. ii. 
pp. 493, 494. 



113 

giving to the virgin Mary the title of Oeoro/coc, Dei 
genetrix, Deipara, " Mother of God." Thus we 
read, Gal. L 19. " James, the brother of God," 
and 1 Cor. ix. 5. " the brothers of God ;" and, in 
translating Luke i. 43. AH actually appears to 
have had the disputed phrase in view ; for he does 

not render it ^Jj\ dJ, Rabbimun Anasi, " the 

mother of my Lord," which the words of the ori- 

ginal, rj ixr\Tr\p rov Kvpiov fiov, require, but ^jJj] CXij 

Rabbun Anasi, " the mother of the Lord" i. e. 
according to Professor Lee, " the mother of God!" 
But here, as in the former instance, relative to 
tl^ll El Rabb, it will be necessary, before we 
admit such important conclusions, to pause and 
examine the premises from which they are de- 
duced. "By the word lL>. Rabb, the Moham- 
medans do not understand our Lord Jesus Christ, 
but God, to the exclusion of every other being :" 
p. 86. " If Dr. Henderson here means by Ku^ioc 
Kar k l £oyj\v in the New Testament, that such pas- 
sages should have been translated by some word 
applicable to man, and not to God, surely i* r **sJ.* 
Sahib, jouj Sayyud, \sS Aghd, or the like, should 
have been proposed, and not lL^ in order to have 
restricted the meaning to our Lord considered as 
man :'! p. 38. I have not adduced this latter pas- 
sage in order to attempt a refutation of the argu- 

i 



114 

ment contained in it, because this argument is 
directed against a position which I never held; 
but to shew, that Professor Lee also adopts as his 
own, the opinion which he imputes to the Moham- 
medans, viz. that Cj. Rabb cannot be given to any 
created being, nor allied in any relation to man, for- 
asmuch as it is one of the exclusive and appropriate 
titles of Deity. That this hypothesis, however, 
is entirely destitute of foundation, will appear from 
the following considerations. 

First, cJj.I Erbab, the plural of C->j Rabb, 

" Lord," occurs times without number in Moham- 
medan writings, in the sense of Domini, posses- 
sores ; and nothing is more common than the com- 
binations J*s$\ 4->y Erbabit-tijan, " the Lords, 
or Possessors of Crowns," i. e. kings ; ^U\ l-Jj.] 
Erbabi-rai, " Masters of Opinion," i. e. counsel- 
lors ; ujUW! <-Jjj\ Erbabul-ibab, " Possessors of 
Hearts," i. e. prudent, intelligent ; J\^o <-Mj\ 
Erbabi Divan, " Lords of the Divan," i. e. Privy 
Counsellors ; c^*Ju> l-jM Erbabi Sendt, " Posses- 
sors of Art," i. e. artificers. Now, although the 
word should never occur in these forms in the 
singular number, yet, it is evidently implied, that 
each one of the persons here spoken of, taken 
singly, is £jj Rabb, " Lord, Master, or Possessor," 
of that which is predicated as belonging to them. 



115 

The same remark applies to the Scripture phrase, 

1 Tim. vi. 15. o BacnXevg rwv fiacriXevovTOJV Kal Kvpiog 

nop KvpievovTojv, Rex regum et Dominus dominan- 
tium, which Ali Bey gives in the pure Arabic 
form ; u->b Jl u_^j CADI wiAU Melikul-mulk, Warab- 

bul-erbab, " The King of kings, and Lord of 
lords;" where, as each of the kings is a king, 
however limited his power, so each of the lords 
is a Rabb, i. e. Master, or possessor of the per- 
sons or things belonging to him. The word is 
also used in its plural feminine form, as J[^\ cl>L>. 

DomincB Thalamorum, " Ladies of the bedcham- 
bers." 

Secondly ; u^ Rabb, " Lord," in the singular, 
the very form in dispute, is used in a manner ex- 
actly resembling the above combinations, Matt. 
x. 25. in the Propaganda Arabic, cujuJI cl>, Rabbul- 
beit, " the Master of the House ;" in pure Arabic, 
.lil Cjj Rabbad-dar ; and in the Scholia, printed 
in the margin of the Petersburgh edition of the 
Koran, p. 414, besides the significations of Ja^ 
Seid, "Master," and v^Ju Malik, "Possessor," 
we also find *L«JI _«: Zewjil-marat, " the husband 

of the woman," assigned as the meaning of ^j>. 
Rabb. 

Thirdly ; The word Cj. Rabb is given as a title 
to man as well as to God, in Arabic writings of 

i 2 



116 

undoubted classical authority. Thus, we find in 
a quotation from Abulfeda, in the Monumenta 
Vetustiora Arabiae of Schultens, p. 48, it is said 
by that Author, of Nooman, who built the castle 
of Khawarnak, 

which is thus translated by Schultens : " Sane in 
meditationem venit Dominus Chawarnaki quum die 
quodam prospexisset exalto ; estque ductui recto 
meditatio." In the Journal des Savans for January, 
1818, p. 25, we have the following rectification 
of the passage, and a new translation by Baron 
Silvestre de Sacy, from which it will be seen, that 
he affixes the same sense to the word in question, 
and applies it to Nooman, as Lord of Khawarnak : 

Recogita Dominum arcis Khaivarnaki quando e 
sublimi loco respexit quadam die; et utique in 
seria cogitatione est directio. The same combi- 
nation is found in one of the examples in Richard- 
son's Arabic Grammar : 

" When I drink freely, then indeed I am Lord (Rabb) of 

Khavarnak and the throne ; 
M But when I awake from ebriety, then I am only Master 

(Rabb) of sheep and of camels." 



117 

Another incontrovertible instance of this applica- 
tion of the word occurs in the Annals of Abulfeda, 
Reiske's edition, p. 238, where speaking of Hasan, 
the son of Gafana, he says, 

(< He forgot me not in Syria, when he was her 
Lord." To these examples I shall add five from 
the Koran itself, in which Pharaoh is called the 
C^j Rabb, or " Lord" of his servants : of these, 
three occur in the 41st and 42d verses of the Xllth 

Surah, thus ; £. {m ^*^ l*£&sA U) ^s^t ( _ s ^-lo k 

^S^\ j*y] ^oi &J\. ^ JkLi) JiUi L~*.l&\» .~JI Ulj L«o- 

" O my fellow prisoners, verily the one of you 
shall serve wine unto his lord, as formerly ; but 
the other shall be crucified, and the birds shall 
eat from off his head. The matter is decreed 
concerning which ye seek to be informed. And 
Joseph said unto him whom he judged to be the 
person who should escape of the two, Remember 
me in the presence of thy lord. But the Devil 
caused him to forget to make mention of Joseph 
unto his lord, wherefore he remained in the prison 
some years." The other two examples occur in 
the 50th verse of the same Surah : viXU) Jl*j 



118 



fAc ^sx^i J>j J\ fjb^} ijxks ijft) xyJU! " And the 

King said, bring him unto me. And when the 
messenger came unto Joseph he said, Return unto 
thy lord, and ask of him what was the intent of 
the women who cut their hands ; for my lord well 
knoweth the snare which they laid for me." From 
these instances, it is obvious, that Cj. Rabb is 
given to merely human lords, especially to kings ; 
and we are informed by Castell, that in the time 
of Paganism, the Arabs even gave to their kings 
the title of u^il El-Rabb, " The Lord" absolutely ; 
but this form came, after their conversion to Mo- 
hammedanism, to be exclusively appropriated by 
them to the Supreme Being. That it is sometimes 
used in the acceptation of Master in general, 
without regard to any particular dignity in the 
person sustaining the character, is clear from the 

proverb in Tabrisi ad Hamasa ; z&xz i-->*ty, 4-^ J£ 
" et ille ; Dominus servum suum mores docet." 
Schultens' Monum. Vetust. Arab. p. 41. 

Lastly, after all his efforts to establish his hypo- 
thesis, Professor Lee, himself, completely over- 
throws it, by admitting that the word in question 
may be applied as a dignified Arabic title, without 
connecting any ideas of divinity with the person 
to whom it is given. " But Dr. Henderson has 
also neglected the context. The disciples of John 
are the persons who here (John i. 39.) address 



119 

our Lord ; there is no probability, therefore, that 
they would give him any higher title than that of 
teacher or doctor*, as it is hardly to be supposed 
that they were acquainted with the divinity of his 
person ; and this inference will hold good, had they 
addressed him by the more dignified Arabic title of 
Cjj Rabb *." After this concession, we cannot be 

* Remarks, p. 102. In the paragraph preceding that from 
which this quotation is made, we have some remarks on my ob- 
jection to the rendering : \Zj \j "Lord! which, being interpreted, 
signifies teacher." Joh. i. 39. " Unfortunately for our Reviewer, he 
has not been aware that the word Q Rabbi, here used by Ali Bey, 

is the very word used in the original, just as it is in the English 
version." Of two things I was perfectly aware at the time I wrote : 
First, that the word in the original was pafifit ; and, Secondly, 
that the term used by Ali Bey to express it, JL> l> Ya Rabb, is 

the very form which he employs, Acts iv. 24, in translating the 
words, Lord! Thou art God, &c, and indeed, generally, where 
the word Kvpie occurs in the original. According to the Transla- 
tor's usage, therefore, a Turkish reader will consider the interpre- 
tation as designed to explain the Arabic, and not a foreign word, 
of which lL> Rabb cannot appear to him to bear any resem- 
blance. Is it not a little strange, that the Professor should have 
forgotten the manner in which the word is given in his own Propa- 
ganda Edition ? The translator of this work, sensible of the incon- 
gruity of giving .Jl^o \j Ya Moallim, " O Teacher" as a trans- 
lation of the Arabic Cj [j Ya Rabb, " O Lord," introduces the 
original word 'Pa/3/3t, completely in its exotic garb ; J\. Rabbi ; 
not only inserting the final ^ 9 but also the |, neither of which 



120 

surprised at the remark, p. 103; " It should 
be remembered, that the divinity of our Lord can- 
not be maintained by the words adopted in any 
translation;" but it will be impossible, on the 
other hand, for the Professor to exonerate him- 
self from the charge of self-contradiction in making 
such an assertion, after having gravely told us, 
that " in nine places out of every ten, at least, the 
word Kvpiog, when applied to our Lord, is ren- 
derered by tl>JI (El Rabb) in Ali Bey's version," 
— a word, which, " the Author of the Kamoos," 
says, " is applied to none but God :" p. 37. Ac- 
cording to this principle, the divinity of our Sa- 
viour may, at least on the evidence of the Turkish 
version, be maintained merely by the word adopted 
by the translator, as has already been shewn. 

The results of the process to which we have 
submitted the examination of the question, are 
these : First, That the word Cj>. Rabb, with the 
article, CjJ\ El Rabb, giving it emphasis, and ren- 
dering it exclusively applicable to God, as the 
Possessor and Lord of heaven and earth, is only 
once, and that improperly, used of our Saviour, 

is exhibited in the Arabic word CJ Rabb, Had my opponent 

attended to this, he would have found, that the Propaganda Ver- 
sion, and not that of Ali Bey, was what he calls " a faithful trans- 
cript of the original," in this case, and might have spared the 
observation, that my " remark savours of hypercriticism." 



121 

in the version of Ali Bey. Secondly; That this 
same word kZj. Rabb, which, taken absolutely, and 
in the highest sense, is a designation of Jehovah, 
is, nevertheless, according to the best and purest 
Arabic usage, applied to human lords, especially 
such as are high in dignity and authority. Lastly; 
That when used, therefore, by Ali Bey, to express 
Kvpiog, it is properly and legitimately employed; 
and the sense in which it is to be taken, is left to 
be determined by the circumstances of the con- 
text; which is precisely the situation in which 
we are placed in regard to the original. 

It must be obvious, however, to every person 
who reads the Appeal, that my objection did not 
lie against the use of this word in application to 
Christ, but against Ali Bey's not using it in pas- 
sages where we find the Greek word Kvpiog thus 
applied in the original. This objection was 
founded, partly on the confusion introduced into 
the sacred text by the interchange of the names 
God and Lord ; and partly, on the annihilation of a 
number of proofs of our Lord's divinity, which I 
maintained must necessarily follow, as a conse- 
quence of this confusion. 

Now, what is the amount of Professor Lee's re- 
marks in answer to this objection ? It is simply 
this : that I am, as he conceives, chargeable with 
a double inconsistency; first, in asserting, that, 
by substituting God for Lord, Ali Bey has de- 



122 

stroyed certain proofs of the divinity of our 
Saviour ; and, secondly, in proposing the use of 
a word which would inculcate his divinity exactly 
in the same way as the word Oeog does. 

Were the author of the Remarks able to prove 
the truth of his position, that lLj. Rabb is equiva- 
lent to Oeoc God, and is never used in a lower, or 
subordinate sense, I admit, that his latter charge 
would be well founded ; but, as its fallacy has 
been detected, to the satisfaction, I trust, of the 
reader, I may be allowed still to maintain, that 
by employing Cj. Rabb as a translation of Kvptog, 
when our Lord is the subject of discourse, he 
would not have restricted its meaning, but left it 
in possession of the same indefinite character 
which attaches to Kvpiog, the word used in the 
original. 

With respect to the other charge of inconsistency, 
I am free to confess, that to a superficial reader, 
or a person who has not thought closely on the 
subject, it may appear to be not altogether with- 
out foundation. Nor was I ignorant that this 
objection had been made to my assertion, long 
before I found it taken up in the Remarks. It 
was urged, and, abstractly considered, urged with 
reason, that if, instead of calling Christ Lord, a 
term which is often applied to merely human 
masters, the translator uses the words God, 
Supreme God, Divine Majesty, &c. he never can 



123 

be chargeable with weakening or annihilating the 
proofs of his divinity, but must, on the contrary, 
be considered as corroborating that doctrine in 
the most decisive manner. It must be observed, 
however, that it was not in an abstracted or more 
general point of view that I referred to the sub- 
ject, but, as occurring in certain specific passages, 
and affected by considerations necessarily arising 
out of the connection in which it thus occurred. 
What I had in contemplation was the fact, that 
in numerous passages of the New Testament, we 
find certain acts or attributes predicated of a 
Being there styled o Kvpiog, " The Lord," which 
cannot be predicated of any mere creature, but 
are confessedly the sole prerogatives of the 
Eternal God. But, according to the usual and 
familiar style of the New Testament writers, 
o Kvpiog is not employed to denote the Divine 
Nature absolutely, or the person of the Father 
in distinction from that of the Son, but our 
Saviour Christ as appearing and acting in his 
mediatorial capacity during his abode upon earth, 
or, as carrying into execution the great work of 
human redemption after his ascension to glory. 
Consequently those passages which connect with 
this title, as applied to him,, properties or acts 
peculiar to divinity, clearly prove him to be God. 
But let us substitute 6 Gcoc, or as Ali Bey has 

done, M Allah, ^L cJJb- Ginabi Bari, " The 

' 13 



124 

Glorious Creator," or some such phrase, in these 
particular passages, and who does not perceive, 
that quite a different idea will be produced in the 
mind of the reader? Instead of conceiving that 
the attributes there described are the possession 
of Him who tabernacled as a man among men, 
was crucified, lay in the grave, rose from the 
dead, ascended up into heaven, where he now is, 
crowned with glory and honour, and whence he 
will come to judge the world at the last day, he 
will naturally think of God merely in a general 
point of view, as existing and acting, irrespective 
of the personal distinctions so clearly revealed in 
the mediatorial scheme. The direct and neces- 
sary tendency of the change of terms is, therefore, 
to suggest an idea of immediate acts of the Deity, 
or acts on the part of man terminating on the 
Divine Nature, without any regard to the econo- 
mical arrangement which constitutes the basis of 
the Christian faith. 

But it will be proper to produce a few passages 
for the sake of illustration, keeping in view the 
manner in which they have been rendered in the 
Turkish version. We read Acts ii. 47, that the 
first Christian church continued daily with one 
accord in the temple — " Praising God, and having 
favour with all the people. And the Lord added 
to the church daily such as were saved." Here, 
as in the original, an important nominal distinc- 



125 

tionis maintained between the object of worship, 
tov Otov, God, referred to in the preceding part of 
the verse, and o Kvpiog, " The Lord," as the author 
of that spiritual increase which was vouchsafed 
to the primitive church. It is well known, that, 
according to the general manner of Luke and 
Paul, the word Kvpiog, without the article, is used 
of God, without reference to any personal distinc- 
tion, but of our Lord Jesus Christ when it takes 
the article, as in the passage under consideration. 
In the version of Ali Bey, the words are thus 
rendered : " Praising the Most High God, &c. the 
Court of Truth (j.*- ^-Jj&> Ginabi Hakk) also added 
daily to the Church," &c. By destroying the 
distinction, the translator renders it impossible to 
resolve the effects, which are here stated to have 
been produced, into an exertion of the power of 
Christ as the Omnipotent Head of his church ; 
and they are consequently described as simple 
and immediate acts of the Father, or the Godhead 
absolutely. 

Chap. xi. 20, 21. " Preaching the Lord Jesus. 
And the hand of the Lord was with them ; and a 
great number believed and turned unto the Lord* 
The impartial reader will naturally conclude that 
the Lord, whose agency was vouchsafed to the 
Apostles so as to effect the saving conversion of 
men by their ministry, a work exclusively the 
prerogative of God, is the same Lord who had just 



120 

been called Jesus, and to whom the converts are 
said to have turned. Not so in the Turkish 
version; V They preached His Excellency Jesus, 
and the hand of the Most High God (Jb£ *&1 Allah 
Taala) was with them." Can any tiling be more 
marked than the distinction here made, for which 
there is not the least foundation in the original ? 

Chap. xiv. 23. " They commended them to the 
Lord on whom they believed." According to the 
style of the New Testament, those whom the 
Apostles addressed, were called to " Repentance 
towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus 
Christ," chap. xx. 21. in consequence of which, 
where any are said to have believed on the Lord, 
as in the passage before us, we are to understand 
by the term, the Lord Jesus. This construction, 
however, it is impossible to put upon the word as 
given in the Turkish version: "They commended 
them to God(&$\ Allahie) in whom they believed;" 
and, as the person to whom they commended the 
new disciples is supposed capable of affording 
them protection and every blessing, it is obvious, 
that by substituting God for Lord, the ascription 
of this Almighty Power to the Lord Jesus, is ex- 
cluded from this passage under review. But it 
would be doing injustice to my argument not to 
quote tkeexcellent remark of Dr. Pye Smith on 
this verse. " In the passage before us, the person 
to whose power and grace the Apostle and his 



127 

associate commended the converts, and their 
newly-established churches, was clearly the Lord 
Jesus ' on whom they had believed,' and on whom 
the inspired teachers directed all persons to be- 
lieve in order to salvation. It was an act of 
adoration ; and it manifestly recognized in Him 
who was its object, that invincible power which 
in the most hazardous circumstances could keep 
his followers from falling, and guarantee that they 
should never perish, nor should any snatch them 
out of his hand." It is also plain, that the just 
construction " leads us to refer the action of 
praying, and that of commending to the same 
object*." 

Chap. xvi. 10. 14, 15. "Assuredly gathering that 
the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel 
unto them. Whose heart the Lord opened. If ye 
have judged me to be faithful to the Lord" These, 
and the other passages above quoted, are adduced 
by the same able writer, from whose masterly 
work I have just given an extract, as proving not 
only that the appellation the Lord is currently 
given to the Redeemer, but that it is combined 
with a peculiar and exalted knowledge, authority, 
power, and influence for the advancement of his 
kingdom, and the protection of his servants ; and 
that both the appellation and the attributives are 
in the usual style and manner of Scripture, when 

* Scripture Testimony, Vol. II. pp. 482, 483. 



128 

it speaks of the Great Jehovah as the Protector, 
Guide, and Saviour of his people*. But all this 
is rejected, and no person would ever think of 
the Lord Jesus on reading these passages, accord- 
ing to the interpretation of Ali Bey : " For we 
concluded from this that the Most High God 
(Allah Tadla) called us thither to preach the 
Gospel. — Whose heart God Most High (Allah 
Tadla) opened. — If ye account me faithful to the 
Most High God." 

We next come to a passage which was in- 
stanced in the Appeal, p. 26, where I observed : 
'■' Thus Acts xviii. 8, when it is said, that Crispus 
believed & ^US afrl in the Supreme God, the reader 
will naturally conclude, that he had formerly 
been an Atheist or Idolater, but was now con- 
verted to the faith of the one true God. But we 
know that he professed this faith before, for he 
was a chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue ; and 
what Luke here affirms, is, that he embraced the 
Christian faith. He believed in the Lord, i. e. 
the Lord Jesus Christ." After spending the 
greater part of three pages in conjuring up ab- 
surdities and mistatements with which to clog 
my argument, but which, in fact, after all, only 
attach to the baseless fabric of his own miscon- 
ceptions, Professor Lee replies in the following 
style : " Very true, Dr. Henderson, there are many 

* Ut sup. p. 462. 



129 

false, though very natural conclusions, drawn 
from the text of Holy Writ. Crispus was, no 
doubt, a ruler of the synagogue ; he may, never- 
theless, have been an Atheist or an Idolater, in 
the strict sense of those terms, and still a ruler of 
the synagogue. And further, although professing 
a belief in the God of Israel, he may have virtu- 
ally denied him, in rejecting his Messiah; and 
now, for the first time, have been initiated in the 
true faith. There is not much stress, therefore, 
to be laid on the Doctor's dogmatic reasons; 
and his critical ones are absurd*." Passing the 
quibble relative to false and natural conclusions, 
may we not ask, who so much as conjectured 
before, that the sacred penman had the most dis- 
tant idea of affirming, that Crispus was, " an 
Atheist or Idolater, in the strict sense of those 
terms," or indeed in any sense whatsoever ; or, 
that " although professing a belief in the God of 
Israel, he may have virtually denied him, in re- 
jecting his Messiah VI Can any conclusion or in- 
terpretation be more false, and, at the same time, 
more unnatural than this ? It is in vain we con- 
sult the commentators on the subject : their re- 
marks are all founded on the common reading 
tw Kvpiy, in the Lord, without deriving any ad- 
vantage from the admirable discovery brought to 
light by the Turkish version. Kuinoel, one of the 

* Remarks, pp. 43, 44. 
K 



130 

latest, only remarks : " Ne autem omni prorsus 
fructo inter Judaeos Pauli laborem caruisse pute- 
mus, narratur Crispum archisynagogum, Christo 
nomen dedisse cum omni sua familia," which 
words I merely cite to shew the light in which he 
viewed the appellative in the text. 

Having attempted to defend the position, that 
it was the Most High God, and not the Lord Jesus 
Christ, in whom Crispus believed, the Professor 
proceeds to turn into ridicule the passage which 
I adduced from a Turkish book, to illustrate the 
manner in which the Turks express themselves 
when describing their God, and which was shewn 
exactly to coincide with what Ali Bey says of 
Crispus. " We are gravely told," says he, 
ff that a book of testimony, written by some Peer 
Ali, lias the following passage," &c. p. 44, on 
which I have only to remark, that the book, of 
which, from ignorance, he here affects to speak 
with contempt, has passed through several edi- 
tions, both at Scutari and Kazan, is to be found 
either printed, or in manuscript in almost every 
Turkish and Tatar house ; and was thought 
worthy of being translated into French a year or 
two ago by one of Professor Lee's own autho- 
rities in his Appendix. His next attempt is, to 
tax me with mistranslation. " Cj $yb Tengri," says 
he, " does not mean Divinity, as given by the 
Doctor, but God, or Lord, when applied to God. 
12 



131 

The true translation, therefore, is, The Lord is our 
God; and the sentiment is just as proper for a 
Christian or a Jew, as it is for a Mohammedan." 
Leaving it to the reader to decide what mighty 
difference there is between Divinity and God in 
the popular acceptation of the word, I have only 
to say, that I used the word merely as a synonyme 
to vary the form of expression agreeably to the 
diversity obtaining between the phrases I was 
translating. The charge of mistranslation falls, 
in fact, entirely back again on the Professor him- 
self. The words to be rendered are, *d 'JJfco B¥j*)j& 
Tengrimuz Allah Tadla dur ; which, as the reader 
will see from chapter third of the present work, 
never can be given by " The Lord is our God," 
but strictly and literally, God Most High is our 
God. Though we were to concede the point that 
Tengri meant Lord, which, however, it does not, 
it would make nothing for my opponent's argu- 
ment, as the subject of the proposition is not 
Tengri, but Allah Tadla; and surely Professor 
Lee would never, knowingly, render this phrase 
by Lord as its proper translation ? That I cited 
2 Thess.i. 11, to prove that Crispus was a Moham- 
medan, is more than he himself seriously believes ; 
but as he thought it worth while to refer to that 
passage, why did he not shew that I had mistrans- 
lated the words there also, and that ^JU) ^Ujf^S 

k 2 



132 

Tengrimuz Allah Tadla, " Our God, God Most 
High," is the proper rendering of o Os6g ripCov, our 
God ; the form exhibited in every other version ? 

It may be objected, however, that granting the 
point relative to Crispus, and allowing that the 
specific object of his faith was the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and not God absolutely considered, how 
does the rendering of AH Bey in the least affect 
the subject of our Lord's divinity ? To this I re- 
ply, that it certainly would not affect it were the 
passage before us perfectly isolated ; but this is 
by no means the case. It is stated in the very 
next verse, that " The Lord (o Kvpioc) spake to 
Paul in the night by a vision : Be not afraid, but 
speak, and hold not thy peace : For I am with 
thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee ; 
for I have much people in this city." It must be 
evident, to every well-constituted mind, that such 
language as this can be used by no created being; 
and if so, then it follows, that the Lord, mentioned 
verse 9th, can be no other than the Lord God 
Almighty, whose peculiar prerogative it was of 
old to declare : " Fear not, I am with thee, and 
will bless thee. Fear not, for I am with thee : 
be not dismayed, for I am thy God." Gen. xxvi. 
24. Isaiah xli. 10. Yet our blessed Saviour adopts 
the same style for the encouragement of his dis- 
ciples : ' ' Lo ! I am with you always, even unto the 
end of the world. Let not your heart be troubled : 



133 

ye believe in God, believe also in me." Matth. 
xxviii. 20. John xiv. 1. Now it must require the 
aid of a very violent and unnatural principle of 
interpretation to make it appear, that the Lord 
who gave this promise of Omnipotent aid to Paul, 
was not the same Lord in whom Crispus believed, 
as mentioned in the verse immediately preceding. 
Ali Bey himself had too much penetration not to 
discern that the same person was spoken of in 
both places ; and, therefore, he renders both in 
the same uniform manner: "Then Crispus the 
head of the synagogue believed in the Most High 
God, with all his house ; and many of the inhabi- 
tants of the city of Corinth, hearing Paul and be- 
lieving, were baptized. And the Most High God 
said to Paul/' &c. But, in no passage within the 
whole compass of the New Testament, is the ap- 
pellation Most High God given to our Lord Jesus 
Christ ; on the contrary, it is exclusively used of 
the Godhead in general, with the exception of 
Mark v. 7. Luke viii. 28, where it is applied to 
the Father in contradistinction from the Son. Is 
it not, therefore, incontrovertible, that the person- 
ality of Christ, and, at the same time, one of the 
strongest indirect proofs of his divinity, are en- 
tirely excluded, in the version of Ali Bey, from 
the passage under consideration ? 

The only other passage to which we shall 
further refer on this important subject, is Rom. x. 



134 



13. " For whosoever shall call upon the name of 
the Lord shall be saved ;" respecting which it was 
observed in the Appeal, p. 41, that the change of 
" the name of the Lord" into " the name of God, 
seems also to have been done with the design of 
annihilating one of the proofs of the divinity of 
Christ, as also not only the lawfulness, but the 
necessity, of addressing divine worship to him." 
On this, Professor Lee remarks, p. 110, " It has 
already been shown, that whether the translator 
had used the word Cj.Rabb, or &\ Allah, the Mo- 
hammedan reader would have understood none 
but the Supreme God. What then was the trans- 
lator to do ? Was he to use the word T ^^\ the 
Messiah, ^*m Jesus, ^dSi\ Effendi, or the like? 
If he had done this, he would have been accused 
of having given a paraphrase instead of a transla- 
tion*." With respect to the manner in w r hich 

the word Cj. Rabb " Lord" is to be understood, 

and will be understood by every Mohammedan 
acquainted with the Arabic language, enough has 
already been said to prove the untenableness of 
the Professor's hypothesis, and to show that there 
exists precisely the same distinction between Cjj 
Rabb, "Lord," and *fi) Allah, "God," as there 

* What does Professor Lee think then of Sx^» Seid, a* applied 
by Ali Bey to Christ? Rev. xi. 8. 



135 

does between the corresponding words in other 
languages. His reasoning, relative to the use of 
Cj>j Rabb, by the oriental Christians, has also been 
shewn to apply equally to Ali Bey's version, in 
which it is applied to our Lord in passages in 
which there is no intimation whatever of his 
divinity in the original. '" No such sense, how- 
ever," adds Professor Lee, " has obtained among 
the Mohammedans ; and the conclusion must, 
therefore, be here, as on a former occasion, that 
Ali Bey has taken the safe side of the question ; 
leaving the reader to determine, whether the con- 
text relates or not to our blessed Lord." What, 
it may be allowed to ask, are we to understand 
by "The safe side of the question?" It would 
naturally be supposed, that the safest plan a 
translator can adopt, where a word is capable of 
being explained in two different ways, is, to lean 
to neither ; but to render it in the version, so as 
to admit either the one or the other interpreta- 
tion, just as it is in the original. Now this is not 
what Ali Bey has done in the disputed passages. 
He has not left the question undetermined ; but 
uses the word ^1 Allah, or some other word, or 
circumlocution expressive of Supreme Deity, and 
designed to represent Qeog, a word which is no 
where applied to Christ in the manner Kvpiog is ; 
and, consequently, excludes the application of 
the argument from the context, which, as in the 



136 

present instance, rests entirely on the identity 
of the word Lord. But I will quote the whole 
passage, and leave it with the reader to decide, 
whether the substitution of Qzog God for Kv/otoe 
Lord, in the 13th verse, does not break the con- 
nection, introduce a new subject of discourse, and 
thereby destroy one of the proofs of our Lord's 
divinity. " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth 
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart 
that God hath raised him from the dead, thou 
shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth 
unto righteousness ; and with the mouth con- 
fession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture 
saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be 
ashamed. For there is no difference between the 
Jew and the Greek ; for the same Lord over all 
is rich unto all that call upon him. For whoso- 
ever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall 
be saved." Those who wish to satisfy their 
minds respecting the direct bearing of this pas- 
sage on the divinity of Christ, are referred to 
Dr. Wardlaw's Discourses on the Principal Points 
of the Socinian Controversy, pp. 122, 123. Uni- 
tarianism Incapable of Vindication, by the same 
author, p. 255, and Dr. Pye Smith's Scripture 
Testimony to the Messiah, Vol. II. pp. 641—643. 
It only remains, before concluding this chapter, 
to exhibit a brief specimen of the arbitrary man- 
ner in which Ali Bey makes use of the names 



137 

Jesus and Christ ; now substituting them one for 
another, and now omitting them altogether. 

(1.) The word Jesus instead of Christ, Rom. 
xiv. 18. xv. 3. Gal. ii. 17. Eph. v. 23,24, 25,32. 
Phil. ii. 30. 

(2.) Jesus omitted. Rom. vi. 11. Eph. iii, 21. 
2 Tim. i. 9. ii. 10. 

(3.) Jesus added. 1 Pet. v. 1. 

(4.) Christ omitted. Rom. xv. 8. 1 Cor. i 24. 
Eph. iii. 1. 1 Thess. v. 18. Titus iii. 6. Phiem. 
1. 6. Heb. xiii. 21. 1 Pet. ii. 5. 

(5.) Christ added. 2 Thess. i. 7. 

Professor Lee may tell us, that all this is of no 
importance, as he does in regard to numerous 
other liberties, which Ali Bey has taken with 
the sacred text ; but they will not appear in this 
light to the critic, who is acquainted witi the 
peculiar manner in which these names are used 
and combined by the different writers of the New 
Testament, nor to the plain Christian who believes 
in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 



CHAPTER VI. 

Socman mode of translating Rom. ix. 5. The rendering of Alt 
Bty decidedly opposed to the Divinity of Christ, as proved 
by this passage. Important distinction between the words 
d\or oi\ Ilah, and <xjj| Allah. Proved from the Lexicons, 
the Koran, AH Bey himself, and the Christian translators. 
Tk passage altered by Professor Kieffer. Reply to Pro- 
fessor Lee's Remarks on the Ethiopic. 

In the preceding chapter, I have endeavoured to 
substantiate the charges brought against the ver- 
sion of Ali Bey as injurious to the doctrine of the 
divinity of Christ, by the interchange of the words 
God u\d Lord. I come now to examine Professor 
Lee's criticism on Romans ix. 5, a passage of no 
mean celebrity in the Socinian controversy, and 
one which every sincere believer in the Godhead 
of ou: Saviour must ever regard with the most 
scrupulous and unremitting jealousy. 

Various have been the methods of attack upon 
this passage by the enemies of the peculiar and 
fundamental dogmas of the Christian faith. The 

Words of the original o yjpiaroq to Kara oapKa o uv 
£7rt 7ra.VTd)v Oeoc evXoyrjrot; uq tovq aiiovaq, afir\v, being 

so clearly established by the fullest consent of 
manuscripts, the ancient versions, and the fathers, 



139 

the only possible way of evading the conclusion 
which they force upon the reader, has been either 
to attempt an improvement in the punctuation, or 
to affix to the word Gtoc a sense inferior to that in 
which it is commonly and strictly taken. Some, 
by placing a period after capKa, would read : " Of 
whom is Christ according to the flesh. God who 
is over all be blessed for ever :" while others put 
it after navTwr, and read thus: "Of whom is 
Christ according to the flesh, who is over all. 
Blessed be God for ever." Such, however, as 
have been more deeply versed in the natural con- 
struction and grammatical proprieties of the Greek 
language, have given up both modes of interpunc- 
tion, and adopted the hypothesis respecting a 
subordinate and metaphorical god, whose exist- 
ence they endeavour to prove from John i. 1, and 
the passage before us. 

It was in contemplation of the absurd doctrine, 
taught by this hypothesis, that my attention was 
particularly arrested by the manner in which this 
important passage is rendered in the Paris edition 
of the Turkish New Testament. In the Appeal, p. 
40, note, I observed : " The words o wv tnl navruv 
0toc kvXoyrirog sic tovq aiuvag are thus rendered : 
jd cM l^J/jJU IjoI *Ju \u\ ^JJ <xU=>. aXjjl ' He who is over 
all a god blessed for ever/ or, ' He who is over 
all an eternally blessed object of worship/ It is 
well known to all who have any knowledge of 



140 

Arabic, that A\ and «il) with a simple Lam, signify 
' a god in general,' * any god ;' but, when the ra- 
dical Elif is made to coalesce with the Lam of 
the article, and its place is supplied by Teshdid, 
or the mark of corroboration, it then receives the 
determinate and exclusive signification of God — 
the only living and true God. This difference is 
strikingly marked in the Mohammedan confession : 
&\ 211 d) 51 La ilahi ill' Allah, * There is no God 
but God ;' i. e. there is no object of worship but 
the Adorable One; and, indeed the distinction is as 

plainly exhibited 2 Thess. ii. 4. ^jS oil! ojj&O) JX^a 
' in the temple of God as a god. 9 From this it is 
evident what Ali Bey meant by using eili Ilah, 
and not *2l Allah of Christ. The one would, in 
the most unequivocal manner, have asserted his 
divinity: the other only admits that he is an in- 
ferior object of veneration." 

From this extract the reader will perceive, 
that the argument turns here entirely upon 
the distinction between the Arabic forms p9) Ilah 
and afil Allah, of which I have asserted, that the 
former signifies " a god, any god," whereas the 
latter is universally and necessarily restricted in 
its acceptation, belonging to none but God, the 
sole and ever-blessed Object of religious adora- 
tion. The propriety of this distinction, however, 
is disputed by Professor Lee. After quoting the 



141 

Mohammedan confession, given above, and para- 
phrasing it thus : there is no other true God, as 
the Christians suppose, but the (one) God, whom 
we acknowledge ; he says, page 107, " The word 
Hah (<x)J), therefore, means precisely the same 
thing with Allah (*Bl). The only point of view in 
which they differ, is, the addition or omission of 
the article, which is generally regulated by the 
context." How two words can mean precisely the 
same thing, and yet that there is a point of view in 
which they differ, is to me, I confess, perfectly in- 
comprehensible; but, that the addition or omission 
of the article constitutes the only difference be- 
tween them, is certainly a truism, and expresses, 
perhaps, in rather a more condensed style, the 
very distinction maintained in my note. To at- 
tempt to shew that the use or omission of the 
article in language, has an important influence in 
determining the sense, would be an insult to the 
understanding of the reader. 

It will be allowed by all, that a safer or more 
unexceptionable mode of trying the merits of the 
case, could not have been adopted, than that of 
an appeal to the best Arabic authorities : the 
decisions of men who have bestowed extraordi- 
nary care and pains in settling the grammatical 
niceties of their native language, being justly con- 
sidered as ultimate and complete. 



142 

" In the Soorah," which I thank the Professor 
for quoting, " we have under the root Ml. 

That is, Ilah, with the vowel i, of the form JJ*J. 
7%e ofy'ec^ ©/* praise, having the meaning of the 
participle passive : hence the word <xfi1 Allah, the 
original form of which is *$] IS //#/*, because he 
is the object of worship. When, however, the 
article (El) is added, the (initial) Elif is dropt, for 
shortness (of enunciation), on account of the fre- 
quency of its occurrence*/' From this definition 
it might at first sight be supposed, that the 
Oriental lexicographer turns the scale against me ; 
but when the reader is informed, that " The object 
of praise' 9 is by no means a correct translation of 
the Persic words cj*£ cjuCw, but that they pro- 
perly signify ot&aopa, omne id, quod cultu sacro 
prosequuntur homines, whatever has been constituted 
an object of religious veneration, he will find, that 
the definition is decidedly in favour of the dis- 
tinction for which I contend. It is not necessary, 
however, that he should form his opinion on the 
subject from the interpretation given, either by 
Professor Lee, or the Author of the Appeal; he 

* Remarks, p. 106. 



143 

has only to weigh the whole bearing of the above 
definition, in order to be convinced, that the words 
cannot possibly have any meaning in the con- 
nexion in which they are introduced, except they 
be explained in accordance with fhe construction 
just given. " Hah, is the object of worship; hence, 
Allah, originally El Hah, because he is The object 
of worship. 71 Could the author cf the Soorah ever 
deduce so illogical a conclusion? But render the 
one word indefinitely, as it oight to be, in the 
absence of the article El; and allow to the other 
the full force of the presence i)f the article, either 
in its original or abridged form, and his reasoning 
will be cogent and just : " The word *i| Hah sig- 
nifies that which is worshipped, any object of reli- 
gious veneration : hence the word M Allah, ori- 
ginally in full, a!XI El Hah," the object of worship, 
" because He is such to the exclusion of every 
other." 

So much for the decision of the Soorah. Let us 
now hear what is said on the subject in the 
Kamoos, a work containing, according to the state- 
ment of the author, the results of a perusal of not 
fewer than two thousand of the most celebrated 
Arabic authors. 

" The author of the Kamoos adds: $&\ U J/> 
sj>s^ doc All \djijb every thing taken as an object 
of worship, is (called) Hah by the person so taking 



144 

it*" It is added by Professor Lee, but the reader 
will hesitate before he adopt the conclusion : 
" According to these definitions, therefore,, the 
word *!] Ilah cesignates the object of worship." 
It does not designate the object of worship, if by 
this phrase be meant the true God, but an object 
of worship ; whatever any person pays divine 
honours to, whetier animate or inanimate, supe- 
rior or inferior. 'Vhat then is the legitimate con- 
sequence to be ceduced from these premises? 
That because <xl) Itih signifies an object of worship 
in general, any god, therefore God, the sole and 
exclusive object of religious adoration, is properly 
designated by this form of the word ? Why, in 
this case, did the Arabs prefix the definite article 
to the word as applied to the true God ? And 
why, on the contrary, do they never apply aJJ! 
Allah to any inferior object of worship ? To turn 
the subject into plain English : because the word 
god, written with a small initial g, means an 
object of worship, are we, therefore, warranted to 
conclude, that according to the usage of our 
language, it is proper to express the name of the 
Supreme and Self-existent Being without a ca- 
pital G ? The cases are as completely parallel as 
the nature of the subject will allow ; and the rea- 
soning of Professor Lee will apply to the one 

* Remarks p. 106. 



145 

equally as well as to the other. " Whether it (god 
Ilah) signifies the true God or an idol, must be 
determined by the character of the worshippers' 
religion. With a Mohammedan or Christian, it 
will mean the true God, as neither acknowledges 
any inferior deity. With an heathen, an idol may 
be-meant ; but whether an inferior deity or not, 
must be determined by the nature of his creed*." 
He may object, indeed, that we never use the 
word in this form when we mean the Most High, 
but always express the initial letter by a capital, 
for the sake of distinction and dignity. True ; 
but I contend, that in like manner the word c^\ 
Ilah, as far as I can find, is never employed, as it 
stands in the objectionable rendering of Ali Bey, 
to designate the true God, but is universally con- 
fined in Arabic usage to the signification of a god 
in a general or inferior point of view. 

But a couple of passages are produced from 
the Koran, and we are told, that " to these fifty 
more, at least, of the same character, may be 
added from that book alone f." And for what 
purpose are they adduced ? If the author of the 
Remarks meant to say, that he considered these 
passages as affording a proof that odl Ilah occuring 
by itself, as in the case under review, can be ap- 
plied to God, or that it "means precisely the 

* Remarks, p. 106. f IbicL P- 107 ° 



146 

same thing with <*Bl Allah," I can only reply : 
habeat sibi. The fact is, that in neither of these 
examples, nor in any passage in the whole Koran 
does the word occur in application to the Supreme 
Being, in the form in which it is used by Ali Bey, 
Rom. ix. 5. But let us examine these proofs : 

Koran, Surah 2, ver. 134. c-j^ajo t ~&>- & )s^ Jj£ J 

^yi^c. Here we have a)) //#/? three times; but in 
the two first instances it is nothing but 4J1 Allah 
in a state of construction, either with a pronominal 
suffix, or another noun, which, therefore, requires 
the rejection of the article : and in the third in- 
stance, the word is restricted by the numeral 
adjective one, in which case the phrase is equiva- 
lent to aSI Allah. Thus : " Were you witnesses, 
when death was present with Jacob, and when he 
said to his sons, What will you worship after me 
(my death) ? They said : We will worship thy God 

(OLvll) and the God of thy fathers (vSA^ *!!), Abra- 

// // 
ham, and Ismael, and Isaac, one God (!j^ lyJI) 

and to him will we be devoted." It is the same 
with the other passage quoted by the Professor, 

ver. 165 of tjie same Surah, y& Jll *JI 31 j^ a!) *Lfi 3 

****j>\ J^>J) " And your God is one God, there is 



147 

no god besides him ; he is the compassionate and 
merciful." In the first case, the article is rejected 
because &\ Allah is joined to a possessive pronoun; 
in the second the word is again restricted by "one" 
and the last is a mere negation : consequently not 
one of them is at all in point. 

It will now be proper to bring forward some 
additional authorities, in proof of this established 
distinction between *!l Hah and *fil Allah, in con- 
sequence of which, the former is never used in its 
separate form to denote the true God, but con- 
stantly signifies a god in general, or an inferior 
object of worship. These authorities shall be 
Castell, Golius, Meninsky, the Koran, Ali Bey, 
and one or two of the Christian versions. 

I. Castell. ail, et oil] x, pro *JU PI. LJT form 
14. Ch. nbtt Quod colitur : Numen, Deus. Hinc 

jit <jdl) pro M, o Geoc, Deus ille Optimus Maximus, 
&c. 

II. Golius. &) Idem quod proxMne seq. et eodem 

S** St**'* 

effertur rnodo, nempe Ilahon. Deus. eU! pro s^U Quod 
colitur : numen, deus. Gi. Chald. PPgL Hinc fit dil 
pro *M o Geoc, Deus ille Optimus Maximus. Fit- 

que peculiari sua forma nomen proprium, re- 
spondens r^ Jehovah, &c. after Castell. 

l 2 



148 

III. Menmsky. eM et *J| ilah, Deus in genere. 
Dio. uncle laM ilahler Dii, Dei. et JaaJH ilaheler 
Deae. But, <xQl Allah, ^h Tanri, vul. Tangri. 
Deus. Gott. Iddio. Dieu. Bog, &c. 

IV. The usage of the Koran is decidedly in 
favour of the distinction. We shall begin with 
the well-known symbol of frequent recurrence : 
4JJI 311 ail if There is no gW (Ilah) besides God 
(Allah), i. e. we acknowledge no object of worship 
besides the Adorable One. Thus, also the kin- 
dred declaration, Surah iv. ver. 89. yt> 31 1 all J! afil 

God (Allah), There is no god (Ilah) besides him. 
By these declarations, the Mohammedans are not 
to be considered as absolutely asserting that there 
is no object of adoration in the world besides God, 
for they would admit with the Apostle Paul, that 
" there are gods many and lords many," 1 Cor. 
viii. 5. but what they mean is, that there exists 
no legitimate object of religious worship, He only 
excepted, who is called by way of eminence and 
exclusion, <$! Allah, Deus ille optimus max- 
imus, which name is appropriated to Him alone, 
and cannot, any more than the homage which it 
implies, be given to any other. Connected with 
these confessions is that, Surah xvi. 23. Jo-lj *J! JL^\ 
" Your God is one God." In Surah xxiii. 93. we 
read, c^aiJ til all ^ &** ^ Uj dJj ^ <x2l .&#) U 



149 

^Uw U jdl J/ "God (Allah) hath not begotten 
issue ; neither is there any other gW (Ilah) with 
him : otherwise, every go^ (Ilah) would surely 
have taken away that which he created." Surah 
xxviii. 71. *tuw ^Ij.^IJj^ alr]^ "Wh&t god 

(Ilah) but God (Allah) would bring you light. " 
In the last verse of the same Surah, we have the 
following remarkable declaration : l^JI <xJJ] ^ cJo $ 3 

a^ U] <^Jla> jb JS y& 311 *S) 51 ^1 * Neither shalt 

thou invoke any other gW (Ilah) together with 
God (Allah) ; there is no god (Ilah) besides him. 
Every thing shall perish except himself." And 
Surah lii. 42. &£jfy t Uc <xBl <jts^ aJ3l vjc all ^ J 
" Have they nay god (Ilah) besides God (Allah)? 
Exalted be God (Allah) above what they associate 
with him." 

To these passages I shall still beg to add two 
more, on account of the reference the one has to 
the divinity of Christ, and the parallel phraseology 
of the other with Rom. ix. 5, the passage of the 
Christian Scriptures under consideration. The 
first is in Surah v. ver. 81. afil-^l \JM ^JJi sS c£6 
(if* c/^ f^**^ j* " They are certainly infidels who 
say that God (Allah) is Messiah, the Son of 
Mary :" in connexion with which, we have in the 
following, ver. 82. c*X (JLfe *Qi %\ )jfo jjM fS jJiJ 
cX^lj <sd) B| all ^ Uj " They are certainly infidels 



150 

who say that God (Allah) is the third of three : 
for there is no god (Ilah) except one God (Ilah 
wahid)." Is it not obvious, therefore, that although 
a Mohammedan might admit that Jesus is Ilah, or 
an object of worship, inasmuch as he is acknow- 
ledged and adored by Christians, yet, he will not 
allow that he is so legitimately ; and, consequently, 
it would, in his estimation, be the height of blas- 
phemy to say, that he is *5i Allah, God over all, 
blessed for ever. Yet the Apostle says as much 
in our text, so that to render the Turkish version 
conformable to the original, it must read <Kil! Allah, 
and not ail) Ilah. The other passage is Surah 
vii. 52. ^Uil Cjj «Bl J ; Vyij 0^\ *$ *1 " Are 
not the creatures and the government his? Blessed 
be God (Allah), the Lord of the worlds !" 

V. Our next authority is AH Bey himself, who, 
we must not forget, was " an Oriental translator 
of acknowledged talent and experience in his 
language." It has already been noticed, that the 
distinctive use of the words all Ilah and <xfi! Allah 
is plainly exhibited, 2 Thess. ii. 4. which passage 
I shall here give more at length ; t-^l c^Ur* &S 
Jj! j&>\ £sj; &jj)\ J$j\ **j*e^ k ij*** *y **1 (►*"' j* 

a^J "Who opposing himself, riseth superior to 
all that is called by the name god (Ilah), or that 



151 

is worshipped, to such a degree, that shewing 
himself as a god (Ilah), in the temple of God 
(Allah), as a god (Ilah) he sitteth." In keeping 
up this distinction, AH Bey has rigidly followed 

the Greek text : o avTiKUfxzvoq Kai virioaioo^voq em 
wavra Xeyofievov Qeov r) (Xcj3a(Tjua, wore avrov uq tov vaov 
tov Geou tog 0eov /caO/crcu, InroSuKvvvTa lavrov, on kan 

Qt6g. It is true, the late Bishop Middleton main- 
tains, that in the two last instances, in which the 
word Oeog occurs without the article, it is not to 
be taken in a lower sense, but signifies the true 
God ; but it is utterly incredible, that the Anti- 
christian power, that was to rise in the very 
midst of the professing Christian Church, how 
high soever he might carry his arrogance, could 
ever pretend to be the Deity himself. It is suf- 
ficiently impious to assume a place in the church 
which cannot legitimately belong to any human 
being, and to receive that homage which mankind 
in every age have considered to be due to none 
but an object invested with divine powers. Mac- 
knight therefore renders the passage in accord- 
ance with the manner of Ali Bey : "Who opposeth 
and exalteth himself above every one who is called 
a God, or an object of worship. So that he in the 
temple of God, as a god sitteth, openly shewing 
himself that he is a god." The same distinction 
is kept up in Air's translation of 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6. 
*Jfl ^jyh ^d&».)y !&)) j&lfd ^j& ji *t>UJt> u^o t&)jp, y> 



152 

Jtx> A*ij| .!j ^^S&id oil] e ^ cj^£ &s- £| Jjj .J jy 

^ ^1 ^ J^.| ^ ^ ^ jL^ JM\ o^ " We 
know that an idol is nothing in the world, and 
that besides the one God (Allah), there is no god 
(Ilah). For, though there be in heaven and in 
earth those that are called god (Ilah), even as 
there are many gods (Ilahler) and Effendies ; yet, 
we have only one God (Allah)." Thus, also, 
Acts xvii. 23, where the Turkish translator ren- 
ders tlie words of the Heathen inscription, 'A-yvw- 
ariA) 0ew, <jo>5I) ^U* U " To an unknown god (Ilah) ;" 
but he does not say in the 24th verse, that it was 
a god (Ilah) that made the world, &c. but afil 
Allah, God, the only living and true God. In 
this case, as in many others, he is more consistent 
than his defendant, who maintains, that ff even the 
ayvtoGToq Oeog, unknown God of Athens, was adopted 
by St. Paul, in his address to the members of the 
Areopagus *." If the Professor will take the trou- 
ble to look again into the passage, he may pro- 
bably find, that the Apostle no more adopted this 
designation, than he admitted that the true God 
had been really worshipped by those ignorant 
idolaters ; for his address commences thus : 6 Qboq 

o 7roirf(Tag rov Koofxov kcii iravra ra kv civtio, ovtoq ovpavov 

Kal yrjg Kvpios virapyjuv ; God that made the world 

* Remarks, p. Ill, 



153 

and all things therein, the same being Lord of hea- 
ven and earth," &c. He may also find from the 
context, that the Apostolic address was not de- 
livered to the members of the Areopagus, although 
one or more of them may have been present, but 
to an assembly consisting for the most part of very 
different characters. 

One example more from Ali Bey will suffice. 
It is Acts xxviii. 6, where we are informed, that 
the inhabitants of Melita, on perceiving that no 
injury had accrued to Paul from the viper, eXeyov, 
6e6v avrov elvm, JjJuiJ .d ^\ " they said, he is a god''' 

(Ilah), not j A &] "he is God" (Allah). It may 

be objected, that those islanders were idolaters, 
and as they knew nothing of the true God, it 
would be, in the highest degree, incongruous to 
make them use his name. I grant the full force of 
the objection, and that Ali Bey has properly ren- 
dered the passage ; but does the same objection 
apply to Rom. ix. 5. ? The Apostle was neither an 
idolater himself, nor was he addressing idolaters ; 
why then, according to Ali Bey, does he merely 
call Christ $\ Ilah, and not *Bl Allah ? The words 
in both parts of the version are the same, and de- 
note a being inferior to the Supreme God; and 
after the marked difference in the manner in which 
Rom. ix. 5. and 2 Cor. xi. 31. are rendered, there 
cannot remain a doubt upon the subject in the 



154 

mind of any impartial reader. In the former, 
where our Lord Jesus Christ is the subject of 
discourse, he is only designated by the name of' 
o)\ Ilah ; but in the latter, when God the Father 
is spoken of, he is called ^JUS *3l Allah Tadla, 
<( God Most High, who is blessed for evermore." 
Why did Ali not employ his favourite Allah Tadla 
in the former instance, as well as in the latter, 
and as the Hindostanee translator has done ? 

Lastly, let us examine how the words <x!l Ilah 
and *B| Allah are employed in Christian translations 
into the Arabic. Not that we can place exactly 
the same reliance on these versions, as it regards 
purity of language, that we do on the works of 
native Mohammedan writers ; but if we find a 
perfect coincidence existing between them on 
any given point, it will be allowed, that their au- 
thority is so far valid. Now, this is precisely 
the case in the present instance. In the Arabic 
Psalter, done from the Syriac, and published by 
Victor Scialac and Gabriel Sionita, Rome 1614, 
in 4to. we find all I Allah rejecting the article 
exactly as it does in the Koran. 1. Before pro- 
nominal suffixes, as ^Jl, ^X^), ix^l 2. In regimen, 
as Ps. xxix. 4. Ss^) <sd! <*2l " God, the God of 
glory." xviii. 50. ^1=* all CJ,b *fi| y> ^ " God 
is the living one : blessed be the God of my salva- 



155 

tim" all Hah, on the other hand, in its separate and 
absolute state, is never once used of the true God, 
the rendering Ps. xiv. 1. ail ^^o! aJi' J Jals 1 ! Jtf 
being properly : " The fool saith in his heart there 
is no god" Not merely does he deny the ex- 
istence of the Supreme Being, but he inwardly 
rejects all religion of whatever form or description. 
A couple of passages from the Arabic version 
of Raphael Tuki, Bishop of Erzerum, and from 
the Polyglott, shall close the evidence. 1 Kings 
xviii. 21, he renders thus: a^oli atf! y& cuJI J& J\ 

" If the Lord be the God (El Hah, the original 
form of Allah) follow him," &c. ver. [24. ly^ 

«4juu i_s3Ji *M!j ^>j +J\ ^cj) Ulj f^H-H ^1 Jul 
atfl ys> jjh " And call ye on the names of 
your gods, and I will call on the name of my 
Lord, and the God (El Hah) that answereth 
by fire, he is the God (El llah)." Ver. 27. 

*3| &y <JL>y4 *&£■[> )j£y6\ %M Uij| a^J i^Sh^i (J& 

" And Elijah mocked them, saying : cry aloud, 
for he is a god (all Hah)" But ver. 39, after the 
people had beheld the manifest demonstration of 
the Supremacy of Jehovah, they fell on their 
faces, and said, aM y* <-^!i 4UI y> w^il " The 
Lord, he is the God (El llah): the Lord, he is 
the God (El llah)" In the Arabic version of 
the Story of Bel and the Dragon, inserted in the 
Polyglott, the same marked distinction is ob- 
13 



156 

served* Thus ver. 3. " Daniel answered, and 
said, Because I may not worship Idols made 
with hands J I M ^ but the living God 
(El Ilah). Then said the king unto him, 
s j>- <*Jl Jju J\ Jai Ui Thinkest thou not that Bel 

is a living god (Ilah)" Again, ver. 23. " And 
the king said unto Daniel, wilt thou also say that 
this is of brass ? Lo, he liveth, he eateth, and 

drinketh : { j^ All y& ^^jj ^| Jjft ^1 £jda**J Uj Thou 

canst not say that he is not a living god 
(Ilah): therefore, worship him. Then said 
Daniel, ^\ M y& 4ft! &bJi ^1 u-^JJ I will wor- 
ship the Lord my God; for he is the living God 
(El Ilah)r 

To sum up the whole, therefore, it appears from 
the best lexicographical authority, both native 
and foreign, and from the usage of the language, 
that <x!l or *3I| Ilah does not mean precisely the 
same thing with &) Allah; that it is never used 
to designate the true God, but only signifies a god, 
or numen in general ; and, that, consequently, as 
applied to Christ in Rom. ix. 5. it only points 
him out as an object of veneration, but not as 
" God over all, blessed for ever, Amen." 

We shall now briefly advert to Professor Lee's 
Christian authorities, and his kind correction of 
my " trifling mistake" inEthiopic criticism. That 



157 

the Arabic versions to which he refers/page 108, 
do not exhibit the common form *2l Allah, I freely 
admit; but, with the exception of the Propa- 
ganda, I have yet to learn, that they read <*JI or eJJl, 
Ilah in its naked form. Both Walton's Polyglott, 
and the Arabic New Testament, published in 1727, 
by Solomon Negri, for the Society for Promoting 

Christian Knowledge, exhibit the word thus : 
// // 
\iixc l^II where the peculiar form in which it is 

placed, requires the ellipsis of the article. The 
same form occurs in the Psalter above quoted, 

xxx. 3. Lxa> t^Ji, and frequently in the Koran. 
The Propaganda (at least Professor Lee's edition) 
certainly has «JJ| Ilah; but it gives the same word 
Acts xxviii. 6. where, it will scarcely be main- 
tained, that it can signify the true God. Let the 
reader compare the two passages, and then give 
his decision. If the Propaganda should in this 
instance be also found to be faulty, it is no 
concern of mine to defend it, any more than the 
Malay, in which the same distinctive use of Ilah 
otherwise occurs, as has just been noticed in re- 
gard to the Arabic. 

With respect to the Ethiopic, to which I re- 
ferred, as being subversive of, instead of favour- 
ing Gilbert Wakefield's lower sense ot'Qeog, Pro- 
fessor Lee asserts, that the word A9°AY1- 
Amldk, on which the stress of my remark rests, 



158 

has no such meaning as that which I had attached 
to it. He adds: "Ludolfsays in his Lexicon, 
(col. 60.) ' A9°/\31 : Deus PL h^lbJil^ \ Dii 
Ps. lxxx. 1. 6. pecul. Ethnicorum.' If indeed the 
word here used had happened to be"K°2H. A"ft rfbC '. 
then would the Doctor's remark have had some 
weight (Lud. Lex. col. 541.) but the case is other- 
wise*." Now, what is the impression left by this 
criticism on the mind of the reader ? Must he not 
conclude, that the word Amldk does not, in " the 
strongest and most appropriate" manner, express 
the idea of Supreme Divinity ? and that it really 
favours the lower sense of Wakefield ? Yet the 
very reverse of all this is the truth ; and, in order 
to give his readers a just conception of the force 
of the word, Ludolf, in the passage above quoted, 
caused the Latin to be printed in capitals, thus, 
Deus ; which the Professor very conveniently 
omits, and thereby leaves it to be inferred, that 
the word has no such distinguished signification. 
That K*F*l\5l : Amldk is equivalent to Beoc, and 
expressive of true and proper divinity is obvious 
from its use in the Abyssinian Catechism : 

(Do^ou : a9°/y3i : 

" Jesus Christus Dorainus noster estne homo an vero Detjs V 
* Remarks, p. 109. 



159 

*' Deus et homo simul in una persona*." 

Thus also in the Liturgy : A9°/V5l: -KD&E I 
^qoXoo/YYl " B " God (Amldk) was born of God 

(AmUky Aqo/v 1 *!: HT^A^/tfi: HnAoq"?: 

« Very God (Amldk) of very God (Amldk):' fihP 1 * I 

A-n: axD&jf: (D^l^h: 4>&h: oa^/v^: 

" In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost, one God (Amldk). 99 0<JZ .' (SP'K^ I 

A-n: axD£i£-: cd™Wi: #&rt: Arfig.: 

A9°/\5i: " The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
are equal — one God (Amldk) ." W&grYi I 
MI-CM I CD A9°/V51} : ' " Thy Son, our Lord, 
and our God (Amldk). 99 J^ni ; SlCil+fl I 
AtyMtflft! "The blood of Christ our God 
(Amldk). 99 In Rom. i. 25, we also find the word 
applied as in the text under consideration : 

<i<n£,: w-iv: hcd-'a*: aipa&; ek.ii:; 

/Y^/VO : " The Creator of all, who is God 
(Amldk) blessed for ever." Professor Lee's re- 
marks are, therefore, altogether destitute of foun- 
dation ; and Amldk (the word used by the Ethiopic 
translator, Rom. ix. 5), strictly and properly sig- 
nifies God. 

The word proposed by the Professor, properly 
answers to Jehovah ; and its etymological im- 
port is " Lord of the Universe," corresponding to 

* Ludolfi Hist, Ethiop. Lib. in. c. 5. 



160 



the <>^l*n Cj, 



of the Arabs, and the Rabbinical 

iD^biyn y\. The indiscriminate use of the two 
words by the Ethiopic translator does not affect 
my argument : it is only one of the numerous in- 
accuracies with which this ancient version is 
chargeable. 

It is scarcely necessary further to add on this 
passage, that in the Armenian Turkish version, 
and in the edition of the Turkish recently brought 
through the press by the Scotch Missionaries at 
Astrachan, the reading all] Allah is found, and not 
o3Jj Hah. In the earlier editions of the Turkish, 
printed in Russia, the Tatar word ^h Tengri 
" God," had been adopted from Seaman ; and in 
the Orenburgh Tatar version, the Persic word 
^f |Jo- Chuda is used, which has the same signifi- 
cation. 

Finally, Professor KiefTer has cancelled the page 
of Ali Bey, in which *i\ Ilah occurs, Rom. ix. 5. 
and reprinted it with <xjJ! Allah : so that the point 
is in fact given up, whatever Professor Lee may 
think or write to the contrary. 



CHAPTER VII. 

Use of Synonymes. Condemned by Father Simon and Dr. 
Campbell. Refutation of Professor Lee's Arguments in 
their Defence. Style of Scripture. Oriental Style. The 
Style of the Koran. Difference between \ Birr, Righteous- 
ness, and ^JS Takwa, Piety. Their Combination to ex- 
press Aitcaiovwri subversive of the Doctrine of Justification 
by Faith. The rendering " Faith counted instead of Righ- 
teousness" Neonomian. 

Besides very materially affecting the true sense 
of many passages of the New Testament, which 
clearly prove the divinity of the Son of God, it 
was shewn in the Appeal, pp. 32— 34. that the 
version of Ali Bey was also calculated to convey 
erroneous notions relative to the important article 
of a sinner's justification in the sight of God. 
Before proceeding, however, to examine Professor 
Lee's strictures on this subject, it will be neces- 
sary to advert to his remarks on that of Syno- 
nymes, which subject originally gave rise to my 
development of the improper manner in which the 
Greek word Sucaioawn " righteousness" is not un- 
frequently translated in the Turkisn version. 

If, in my original Remarks to the Committee, I 
was extremely brief on the subject of synonymes, 

M 



162 

it arose solely from a persuasion that the instances 
which I exhibited, merely as a specimen, were, of 
themselves, sufficient to convince that body of 
the perfect incompatibility of such a style of 
language, with the dignity and precision of Scrip- 
ture diction. My disapprobation of it, and the 
ground of this disapprobation, I conceived to be 
distinctly stated in the manner in which I de- 
signated that class of my objections : " The use- 
less employment of synonymes where one word 
would sufficiently express the force of the origi- 
nal." The instances were : righteousness and piety 
for " righteousness ;" glorify and praise for "glorify ;" 
unoccupied, unemployed for " idle ;" anguish and sor- 
row for " sorrow ;" worthy and deserving for " de- 
serving;" quick and ready for "swift," &c. I 
regarded it as a matter perfectly decided to the 
satisfaction of every person versed in Biblical lite- 
rature, that such an use of synonymes was alto- 
gether inadmissable into versions of the Sacred 
Scriptures. Father Simon, in his critique on the 
version of Port Royal, remarks : "I do not be- 
lieve that any judicious person will approve of 
another remark which the same translators add 
in their Preface, when they affirm, that it is not 
to depart from the letter to make use of divers 
words to express a single one. I durst avouch, 
on the contrary, that an interpreter who designs 
to represent the character of the author whose 






163 

works he translates, ought not to alter his version 
by using synonymous words ; for if he be desirous to 
explain some of them by others that are more 
clear and better known, they must not be in- 
serted in the text of the version, but in the 
margin, as several translators in these latter times 
have done." 

" By this means," he adds, " we return the 
simple style of the Evangelists and Apostles, and 
even their words, as much as possible, without 
rendering ourselves unintelligible : whereas the 
translation of Mons, which is full of synonymous 
words and phrases, does not exhibit to us the genuine 
style of the New Testament. They sometimes limit or 
weaken the sense of the original by this expletive word, 
and then it becomes no longer the Sacred Text, but a 
certain interpretation*" On these remarks, Dr. 
Campbell, whose opinion ought to be allowed 
considerable weight in questions of this kind, 
observes : e< Mr. Simon condemns it much in a 
translator to explain, by several words, what 
might have been translated by one only. / con- 
demn it no less than he\" 

Professor Lee, however, is differently minded ; 
and to his judgment, the practice here condemned 
stands approved : First, because he imagines its 

* Critical History of the Versions of the New Testament, 
Part II. p. 273. 

f Prelim, Dissert. XI. p. i. § 23. 
M 2 



164 



parallel is to be found in the Hebrew Bible : 
Secondly, because it is agreeable to the style of 
the best Oriental books : Thirdly, because it gives 
emphasis to the subject : And, lastly, because no 
religious truth is thereby injured. 

1. The Hebrew Bible abounds with this style. 
" If the style itself is incompatible with the dig- 
nity of the Holy Scriptures, how comes it to pass, 
that the Hebrew Bible abounds with it*?" p. 57. 
That the Hebrew Scriptures abound with useless 
synonymes, will, I believe, be a new doctrine to 
many who have been in the habit of making 
themselves familiar with the original of the Old 
Testament ; and I rather doubt whether they will 
admit, that it exhibits numerous "nouns of ex- 
cess." It is true the authority of Glassius is 
quoted in a note ; and I certainly agree with my 
antagonist in thinking, that " on this question, 
his authority will, perhaps, be allowed to be 
sufficient," p. 50. But, in order to ascertain the 
real opinion of this learned author upon the sub- 
ject, we must suffer Glassius to speak for himself, 
and not receive his testimony in the garbled 
manner in which it is introduced to our notice 
by Professor Lee. " Pleonasmus seu abundantia 
verborum aut sententiarum ita dicitur, non quod 
otiosa plane sint aut inutilia, quse repetuntur vel 
abundant : sed quod sine illis nihiiominus videre- 

* Prelim. Dissert. XL p. i, § 23. 



165 

tur necessarius sensus constitutus. Abundantes 
autem illae voces vel rem plenius exponunt, vel 
emphasin addunt, vel affectum dicentis arguunt, 
vel distributionem notant, vel demum ex usu lin- 
guae sanctee ita ponuntur*." So far from con- 
ceiving the fulness of expression which abounds 
in the Sacred Scripture to be unnecessary or 
superfluous, our venerable critic is shewing that 
it cannot be dispensed with, and that, on accurate 
investigation, we shall always find some reason 
calling for its use. It would be supposed, from 
the reference that is made to his authority, that he 
really took up the subject of useless synonymes, 
and that we should be furnished with some ex- 
amples quite in point: but it is just the reverse. 
Not one of all the instances which he adduces 
under the head of pleonasms, has any relation to 
our present subject; and I will venture to affirm, 
that no example, such as those condemned in 
Ali Bey, are to be found either in the Old or 
the New Testament. 

But granting, what is here pointedly denied, 
that the Bible did abound in the use of syno- 
nymes, can this be deemed sufficient to warrant a 
translator to employ similar couplets where they 
do not occur in the original ? If we admit this, 
then I should like to know by what law he is 
not to synonymize the synonymes themselves, if 

* Phil. Sac. col. 1230. Edit. Lips. 1725. 4to. 



166 

his fancy or taste should so dictate, so that in- 
stead of one couplet of such words we should 
have two, and so on in proportion. 

2. It is maintained, " that the best books to 
be found in the East, whether written in the 
Arabic, Persian, or Turkish languages, are all 
composed in this style." "This," adds the Pro- 
fessor, " is a fact, of which, I believe, no one, if 
we except Dr. Henderson, has ever entertained a 
doubt ; a proof that the sacred taste of the Orien- 
tals differs very widely from that of the Doctor." 
p. 57. That the Orientals of the present day, 
and especially the Turks, are partial to the use of 
synonymes, will not be disputed : whether the 
best books written in the languages specified by 
Professor Lee be all composed in this style, it would 
be the height of presumption in one who ci does 
not appear to have read one book of authority 
in either of them" to pretend to call in question. 
He may be allowed, however, simply to ask, what 
degree of excellence and authority his opponent 
is disposed to concede to the Koran ? It is well 
known, that Labid, a cotemporary of Mohammed, 
and a celebrated Arabic poet, was so struck with 
the style of this book, that, immediately on read- 
ing it, he took down his prize poem which had 
been hung up in the temple at Mecca, and yielded 
the palm to the prophet, whose religious system 
he embraced in consequence. It is not my in- 



167 



tention to eulogize the taste of Labid, respecting 
which very different opinions obtain among those 
who have read the Koran in the original ; but it is 
of importance to our present enquiry, to advert 
to the fact, that the circumstance of his conver- 
sion is boasted of wherever the doctrines of 
Islamism are propagated, being regarded by the 
devotees of that religion, as an irrefragable proof 
of the inimitable style of their sacred book, and 
its undeniable claim to divine inspiration. Now, 
it might have considerable influence in deciding 
the question in debate, if it could be proved that 
this book is composed in the style reprobated in 
the Appeal. If it only can be shewn, that it con- 
tains any thing analogous to unoccupied and unem- 
ployed, worthy and deserving, quick and ready, and 
such like synonymic combinations, it might, 
perhaps, go far towards convincing some minds 
of the propriety of adopting them in translations 
of our Holy Scriptures, designed for circulation 
among Mohammedans. No such instances, how- 
ever, have been produced, and I do not believe 
any can be produced; but if they should, I 
frankly own, that, for my part, even then the 
ideas which, in common with many others, I 
entertain on the subject of " sacred taste," would 
invincibly constrain me to withhold my assent 
from their adoption. 

It is, says Dr. Campbell, in his able work on 



168 

the Philosophy of Rhetoric*, considered as of the 
nature of tautology, to lengthen a sentence by 
coupling words altogether, or nearly synonymous, 
whether they be substantives or adjectives, verbs 
or adverbs. But it is an invariable maxim, that 
words which add nothing to the sense, or to the clear- 
ness, must diminish the force of the expression. There 
are certain synonymas which it is become custo- 
mary with some writers regularly to link together; 
insomuch that a reader no sooner meets with one 
of them, than he anticipates the introduction of 
its usual attendant. It is needless to quote au- 
thorities ; I shall only produce a few of those 
couples which are wont to be thus conjoined, 
and which every English reader will recollect 
with ease. Such are — plain and evident, clear and 
obvious, worship and adoration, pleasure and satisfac- 
tion, bounds and limits, suspicion and jealousy, courage 
and resolution, intents and purposes. The frequent 
recurrence of such phrases, is not indeed more 
repugnant to vivacity than it is to dignity of 
style. 

It has been thought by some, that words of this 
description are perfectly identical in meaning, 
and, that they are only different signs of the same 
idea ; but, the more language becomes the sub- 
ject of critical investigation, the more it is found, 

* Vol. II. p. 237. 



169 

that, whatever may be their apparent agreement, 
they radically differ as it regards their individual 
bearing, and the extent and shades of meaning 
which they convey. That the same holds true of 
the Oriental languages, will presently appear ; 
and it was this, still more than the simple circum- 
stance of style, which formed the ground of my 
objection to the introduction of synonymes into 
versions of the Holy Scriptures. 

3. Their use, however, is farther pleaded for, 
on the principle, that they " give emphasis to the 
expressions in which they have been found," pp. 
56, 57. But who does not see, that the very 
same thing may be said in vindication of their use 
in the European languages ? In fact, wherever 
they are employed, it is to be presumed, that it is 
with this view, which is indeed distinctly avowed 
by the translators of Port Royal, in the preface to 
their version of the New Testament. Yet, if we 
examine the instances in which such usage is 
adopted, we shall find, that no particular empha- 
sis attaches to the words of the original thus 
translated ; at least, no greater emphasis than 
might have been equally well expressed by equi- 
valent words of the language into which the ver- 
sion is made. Let us take, for example, the word 
a^ioq : what peculiar emphasis does it possess in 
any given passage, which would not be suffi- 
ciently expressed by the Arabic word j^*** 



170 

Mustahak, meritus, dignus ? Or what is there em- 
phatic in the word apyoi, rendered " idle" by our 
translators, Matt. xx. 3. which is not adequately- 
represented by Seaman and Brunton, both of 
whom have y*&*\ Ishsiz, occupatione carens ? It 
is not, however, the suffrage of these two trans- 
lators only, that stands opposed to such a mode 
of combining what are usually called synonymous 
words : it is opposed by the whole conclave of 
translators, if we except the Gentlemen of Port 
Royal, Ali Bey, and one or two more, who have 
already met with deserved castigation. 

The last ground on which Professor Lee rests 
his defence of synonymic combinations is, that, 
in the cases adduced, " no religious truth has 
been injured ;" and having thus briefly stated it, 
he adds : " we may dismiss class the second with- 
out any further ceremony," p. 57. Such, how- 
ever, as have read his Remarks, will recollect 
that he was at considerable pains in endeavour- 
ing to get rid of the particular bearing which was 
shewn in the Appeal to attach to a combination of 
this sort ; and I hope he will not be alarmed at 
my once more calling up " the pallentes umbra of 
the unhappy words isJS$ ^ Bir watakwa (righte- 
ousness and piety) from their place of rest *," in 
order more fully to state my objection to the use 

* Remarks, p. 68. 

10 



171 

Ali Bey has made of them in the Turkish New 
Testament. 

It was stated, Appeal, pp. 28. 31. that, among 
eight different ways employed by Ali Bey to ex- 
press Si/caioowr? righteousness , one of frequent oc- 
currence was the combination of the words just 
quoted. Now I must beg it to be distinctly un- 
derstood, that my objection to this particular 
combination arose principally from a conviction, 
that the two words were far from being perfectly 
synonymous; and that, from the difference of 
meaning existing between them, sprang an error 
of the most alarming and pernicious nature in 
those passages of the New Testament, which treat 
of justification before God. I unavoidably at- 
tached to the latter word (<^j&' Takwa) the idea of 
what is usually called a Christian grace, the per- 
sonal and inwrought quality of piety, which forms 
a prominent feature in the character of every be- 
liever, and is not less conducive to his eternal 
safety and felicity, than it is evidential of the 
reality and genuineness of his faith. In a word, 
I considered it as comprehending works, and there- 
fore could not but view its use in the disputed in- 
stances as subversive of the grand doctrine of 
justification by faith alone, without any regard to 
human performances. 

In perusing Professor Lee's Remarks on this 
subject, I have paid more than ordinary attention. 



172 

both to his etymological definition of the words 
in question, and his theological reasonings relative 
to justification; but I must candidly confess, that 
so far from removing my scruples, they have only 
tended more deeply to rivet my conviction of the 
dangerous consequences to be apprehended from 
the circulation of a version containing such obnox- 
ious renderings. 

With respect to j> Birr, as a proper word by 
which to translate &aibm;H, I see no valid objec- 
tion that can be made to the use of it, especially 
as it " has long ago been adopted by the Chris- 
tians of the East *." This circumstance is perhaps 
of greater importance than the Professor may 
have imagined, as it tends to produce a degree of 
uniformity among the different versions brought 
into circulation in Oriental countries, by means 
of which, they would lend each other mutual 
countenance and support. Nor do I suppose that 
I shall be thought singular in the opinion, that it 
would be most desirable to have a standard Arabic 
version of the Bible, from which translators into 
the Persic and Turkish languages might adopt, 
without variation, all the principal words, except 
in those cases in which their place could be 
equally well supplied by native words in these 
languages. But not to insist on this : when I pro- 

* Remarks, p. 6 ( J. 



- 173 

posed the other Arabic word c^Jl^ adalet, it was 
merely in lieu of the synonymic combination, and 
because z> birr might be thought by some not to 
be sufficiently expressive. We are told, indeed, 
in " rather a curious note," at the foot of page 75 
of the Remarks, that " the word cuilo^ (adalet) does 
not mean righteousness in a religious sense ; but is 
the forensic term right or justice ;" but this is only 
another instance of the gratuitous ex cathedra asser- 
tions with which the Remarks so much abound. 
Supposing, however, that our Author were perfectly 
accurate here in reference to the forensic sense of 
cuil^ adalet, every one conversant with polemic di- 
vinity is aware that the word Si/ccuow is plainly a fo- 
rensic term, as used in relation to evangelical justifi- 
cation ; and Witsius does not hesitate to say, that 
" scarcely any who love to be called Christians 
have such a bold front or stubborn mind as to 
deny it. Certainly the Popish doctors themselves 
generally own it*." But the Professor says that 
this sense will not suit Matt. v. 6. Very true ; 
but where did he learn that the forensic was the 
only sense attaching to u^sJ1<\c adalet 7 . Certainly 
not from Ali Bey ; or, if we must consider him 
as uniformly using it with this exclusive significa- 
tion, and not also, at times, " in a religious sense," 

* Economy of the Covenants, Book III. Chap. iv. § 5. 



174 

what construction are we to put upon the follow- 
ing passages in which he uses it for Sucaioowri, 
righteousness I Rom. xiv. 17. " For the kingdom 
of God is not meat and drink, but justice (c^IIac 
adalet, " as executed in the courts of law*"), and 
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 2 Cor. iii. 9. 
" For if the administration of condemnation be 
glory, much more shall the administration of 
justice (c^JIjst. adalet, " as executed in courts of 
law") exceed in glory." vi. 7. " By the word of 
truth, by the power of God, by the arms of justice 
(u^J)j^ adalet, " as executed in the courts of law"), 
on the right hand and the left." What ideas must 
the Turks form of the Christian religion, if such 
be the genuine meaning of these passages as they 
stand in the Turkish New Testament ? With the 
exception of the Kadis, I fear we shall find but 
few among them disposed to give it unqualified 
reception. Whether it be " as good divinity as 
that proposed by our Doctor," and whether, upon 
Professor Lee's own shewing, it can be proper to 
circulate an edition of the New Testament con- 
taining such divinity, let the reader determine. 

To proceed: instead of uniformly employing 
the word .j Birr by itself, to express Sikcuogvvyi, 
which he does in nearly forty instances in the 

* Remarks, p. 75. 



175 

course of the New Testament, Ali Bey sometimes 
combines with it the word ^js takiva, which we 
now propose to consider. According to the 
Lexicons, it is derived from the root ^ waki, 

cavit, servavit, custodivit ; and under the eighth 
conjugation, timuit, coluitque Deum, pius fuit. 
Its signification is, therefore, caution or abstinence 
from evil, the fear of God, piety. If we examine 
the manner in which it is used separately by 
Ali Bey, we shall find that he attaches nearly the 
same idea to it. Thus, Luke ii. 25, and Acts ii. 

5. he gives one of its forms ^al* mutteki as a transla- 
tion of evXatrjQ pious, religious ; and Acts x. 2. for 
ciKTcCrjc. The very word in question is, in fact, 
that by which he renders hwztua, godliness, piety, 
in all the passages in which it occurs in the New 
Testament. Is it not evident, therefore, that if 
on the one hand, L birr, " righteousness," be used 

to express the highest degree of moral rectitude 
as one of the divine attributes ; and is the root 
which, together with its derivatives, is employed 
to denote the act and consequences of justification, 
as it regards the sinner's state before God; and if, 

on the other hand, ^yu takiva, "piety" be re- 
stricted by its application to man only, and ex- 
press a quality, or a constellation of qualities, 
which are never represented in Scripture as 



17G 

entering into the matter of our justification, but 
which, in fact, form a very important part of 
subsequent holiness or Gospel sanctification, it 
must incontrovertibly follow, that the two words 
are far from being synonymic or convertible 
terms, and that the latter cannot in any way be 
applied to the subject of our becoming righteous 
in the sight of Jehovah, without completely sub- 
verting the doctrine of the New Testament on 
this most important article. All who have pe- 
rused that volume with attention, must be aware, 
that we are nowhere said to be justified on ac- 
count of kvde^ia piety, but that, on the contrary, 
God is expressly styled " the Justifier of the un- 
godly," or impious, tov Sikoaovvtcl tov 'A2EBH, Rom. 
iv. 5. such being the character of every person 
who is justified up to the moment of his being 
constituted righteous at the bar of heaven. Ac- 
cording to the reasoning of the Apostle Paul in 
the chapter just quoted, as well as in other parts 

of his epistles, j> birr " righteousness," and ^^p 

takwa " piety" are, as far as it regards our justifi- 
cation, diametrically opposed to each other. In 
this view of the matter piety is another name for 
works, and we have only to substitute the one for 
the other, to perceive at once how perfectly anti- 
scriptural it is to ascribe to this moral quality any 
influence in effectuating the important blessing 



177 

we are here treating of. It is true, Professor Lee 
endeavours to evade the force of this argument, 
by asserting that the works to which God's righte- 
ousness is opposed, were those performed by the 
Jews in the observance of the law of Moses*; 
but the fact is, it is equally opposed to works 
performed in obedience to the Gospel, as a ground 
of acceptance with the Most High. The Sucatoavvt] 
or righteousness which alone constitutes the ground 
of this free and gracious act, on the part of the 
great Governor of the Universe, is not as was 
observed in the Appeal, p. 33. any inherent or 
implanted righteousness, or any works of righte- 
ousness done by man, but the meritorious righte- 
ousness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

That such was the sentiment held in the pri- 
mitive church, is evident from the following 
striking passage in the Epistle of Clement to the 

Corinthians : YIclvtzq ovv £o\>£a<T0*jarav Kal c^utyaXvvOr?- 
<rav ov St aurajv, r/ twv epyujv avrwv, ri ti]q BiKai07rpayiag 
tiq cvapyatravro, aWa o\a rov OaXyj/maTog avrov. Km rjfxuq 
ovv $ia rov OeXfifxaToq avrov kv Xokttw Irjtxou /cX^Ocvrcc, 
ou St mvTLJV St/catovjU€0a, ouSc Sm rr]Q Yi/JLtrkpaq aofyiaq, r/ 

'EY2EBEIA2, 'H "EPrQN *QN KATEIPFASAME- 
QA 'EN '02I0THTI KAPAIAS, hXXa &a rnq itfe- 

T€0>C, Si* 7IQ TTCLVTaQ TOVQ aiT CLILOVOQ O TZaVTOKpaTtop 0£O£ 

fStfcatwcr£v, to tGTto So$a uq rovg aluyvaq twv aiwvtov. 

apivf. "These, therefore, all attained to glory and 

* Remarks, p. 71, f P. 41. Edit, Oxon, 



178 

greatness, not by themselves, or their works, or 
by the righteous actions which they performed, 
but by His will. We also being called by 
his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by 
ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or piety, 

Or WORKS WHICH WE HAVE WROUGHT IN 

sanctity of heart, but by faith, by which 
Almighty God hath justified all from the begin- 
ning of the world. To Him be glory for ever. 
Amen." 

The same doctrine is thus explicitly taught in 
the Homilies of the Church of England : " The 
very true meaning of this proposition or saying, 
We be justified by faith in Christ only, (accord- 
ing to the meaning of the old ancient authors), 
is this : We put our faith in Christ, that we be 
justified by him only, that we be justified by God's 
free mercy, and the merits of our Saviour Christ 
only, and by no virtue or good work of our own that 
is in us, or that we can be able to have, or do, for to 
deserve the same ; Christ himself only being the 
cause meritorious thereof* " And again : " Be- 
cause all this (justification by faith) is brought to 
pass through the only merits and deserving s of our 
Saviour Christ, and not through our merits, or 
through the merit of any virtue that we have within 
us, or of any work that cometh from us ; therefore, 
in that respect of merit and deserving, we for- 

* Third Part of the Sermon of Salvation. 



i 



179 

sake as it were altogether again faith, works, and 
all other virtues *." The same doctrine is taught by- 
Hooker in his Discourse of Justification, in which, 
when opposing the Roman Catholics, he makes 
the very distinction which we maintain to exist 
between righteousness and piety : "Whether they 
speak of the first or second justification, they make 
it the essence of a divine quality inherent; they make 
it righteousness which is in us. If it be in us, then is 
it ours, as our souls are ours ; though we have 
them from God, and can hold them no longer 
than pleaseth him ; for if he withdraw the breath 
of our nostrils, we fall to dust : but the righteous- 
ness wherein we must he found, if we will be justified, 
is not our own ; therefore, we cannot be justified by 
any inherent quality. Christ hath merited righteous- 
ness for as many as are found in him. In him God 
findeth us, if we be faithful, for by faith we are 
incorporated into Christ. Then, although in our- 
selves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous* 
yet even the man which is impious in himself, full 
of iniquity, full of sin, him being found in Christ 
through faith, is justified f," &c. To these au- 
thorities, I shall add that of a Presbyterian divine : 
" Faith justifies, as it is the instrument or mean 
of justification. In this instrumentality, no other 

* Third Part of the Sermon of Salvation, 
f Works, London, 1670, fol. p. 495. 

N 2 



180 ' 

grace of the Spirit, and no work of the law are to be 
associated with it. Nor is it for its own intrinsic 
worth, that a man is justified by the instrumen- 
tality of it ; for he is nowhere said in Scripture, 
to be justified for faith, but only to be justified 
by it*." 

According, therefore, to the Apostolic testi- 
mony, and the opinion of these theologians, piety 
cannot, in any point of view, or under any modi- 
fications, be taken into the account in the matter 
of our justification, either as forming part of our 
justifying righteousness, or as giving the righte- 
ousness of Christ any validity on our behalf; 
consequently, to translate SiKaioawt), " righteous- 
ness," in those passages which relate to justifica- 
tion, by <Jy3 takwa, which uniformly and ex- 
clusively signifies piety in man, must infallibly 
lead the reader to seek for something within him- 
self, or performed by him, as the ground of his 
acceptance. And to join righteousness and^ze(?/ 
together in this matter, what is it, but to set forth 
anew the old error of the Galatians, who could 
not rest satisfied with the all-sufficiency of the 
meritorious work of Christ, but conceived it was 
necessary for them to add something of their own 
to help it out, and render it peculiarly available 
to their salvation ? 

* Colquhoun on the Law and the Gospel, p. 172. 



181 

It was on this ground that I objected to the 
rendering " for the promise that he should be the 
heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his 
seed through the law, but through the righte- 
ousness and piety of faith." Rom. iv. 14. For 
I believe I shall be borne out in affirming, that 
the foundation on which this promise rested, as 
well as the channel of its conveyance, was not 
any obedience, righteousness, or piety of the 
Father of the faithful, or of his seed, either be- 
fore, under, or after the Mosaic dispensation, but 
the righteousness of the Messiah, the seed that 
should come, with a special view to whom it was 
made, and in virtue of whose obedience unto 
the death, it is given unto them who believe. 
Gal. iii. 16—22. It is because faith terminates 
on this finished obedience of the Saviour, as its 
grand object in the matter of justification, that it 
is called Sucaioavvij tti<jt£<*)q, (( the righteousness of 
faith," a designation nowhere given to implanted 
righteousness, although it be also true, that God 
" purifieth the hearts of men by faith." Acts xv. 
9. It is for the same reason that those who are 
absolved from their legal obligation to punishment, 
and accepted into a state of favour with God, are 
said to be SikcimOzvtzq £k m<mw^ "justified or made 
righteous by faith." Rom. v. 1. Admit, on the 
other hand, what is contended for by Professor 
Lee, that the promise is through a righteousness 



182 

and piety springing from faith, and that this faith 
is available because it is " active, devotional, cau- 
tious, abstinent" p. 70; that piety forms part of 
the gift of righteousness in virtue of which be- 
lievers shall reign in life. Rom. v. 17. p. 71 ; 
that Abraham's faith " included the practice of 
piety," ibid, and that moral goodness, righteous- 
ness, or piety, is what Paul refers to Gal. ii. 21. 
p. 73 ; and you not only introduce a manifest 
confusion into the language of Scripture, but 
assign to the works or piety of the sinner an im- 
portant place in the matter of his justifying 
righteousness. 

We are told, indeed, p. 70, that " in any sense 
the piety of faith cannot be said to be the piety of 
works, or of self-righteousness, unless our ap- 
pellant has discovered some rule of logic with 
which the world has been hitherto unacquainted;" 
but it would have been more satisfactory if the 
Professor had pointed us to some passage of 
Scripture in which it is taught, that the piety of 
faith (if such an expression be found there) means 
a piety which is the object and not the effect of 
faith. For my part I cannot but think that piety 
of faith is very closely allied to what the Apostle 
calls the " work of faith, and labour of love, and 
patience of hope.' 7 1 Thess. i. 3. and is, therefore, 
to be placed under the head of sanctification, and 
not under that of justification, to which it would 



183 

stand opposed even as a Christian grace, if the 
communication of the divine favour in this act 
were, in any shape, referrible to its influence. 
For it becomes what the Professor calls " a piety 
of works, or self-righteousness," the moment any 
dependence is placed upon it as a ground of ac- 
ceptance with God. Such, at least, appears to 
me to be the rule of logic laid down in the New 
Testament. 

But, to conclude this long discussion, the 
reader has only carefully to analyze the whole of 
the Remarks, pp. 63 — 74, to be convinced, that, 
notwithstanding all that Professor Lee may say 
about justification by faith, the atonement and 
merits of Christ, self-righteousness, the Gospel 
of Christ, &c. by connecting piety with righteous- 
ness, or at least by vindicating Ali Bey for having 
so connected it, in such passages as Rom. iv. 13. 
v. 17. x. 3. Gal. ii. 12. iii. 6. 21, he, in effect, 
clearly admits, that it is something in man that 
is there meant, and consequently, that the Sikclio- 
awrt is not, or, at least, not merely, the justifying 
righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and re- 
ceived by faith alone. Was there no just cause 
then for alarm, on this infinitely interesting and 
momentous topic ? 

It is not merely, however, by this use of the 
synonymical combination ^yu; jj birr watakwa, 
" righteousness and piety/' in the matter of justi- 



184 

fication, that the doctrine of the Gospel is sub- 
verted : it is also corrupted by the rendering, 
Rom. iv. 3. ^jJjIo zjjjtj ^U^ «*> "And that faith 
he counted instead of righteousness." On this I 
observed in the Appeal, p. 32. that " it substi- 
tutes faith, as a principle which God will accept 
in lieu of obedience, than which nothing can be 
more contrary to the whole scheme of revealed 
mercy." At this assertion, Professor Lee ex- 
presses himself in no small degree surprised, 
conceiving it to be a complete contradiction to 
affirm, that any person can insist upon good 
works the one moment, and the next broach a 
sentiment which goes to exclude their necessity; 
but it must be remembered, that this is a contra- 
diction for which I am not at all accountable. It 
is one which clogs the version of Ali Bey, and is 
found, more or less, to attach to every system 
which represent human deeds as a constituent 
part of our justifying righteousness. In fact, 
those who declaim most loudly against justifica- 
tion by faith alone, as a doctrine destructive of 
good works, are uniformly found to be the very 
persons who are most deficient in such works 
as the New Testament teaches to be well-pleasing 
to God : whereas those who reject all works of 
any kind, or degree, as influential in justification, 
are such as stand distinguished by a careful soli- 
citude to be foremost in the practice of every 



185 

thing which tends to the glory of God, or the 
good of man. 

The idea obviously conveyed by the words *J to 
count faith instead of righteousness," is one of the 
favourite dogmas of the Neonomian system, which 
is thus stated by Macknight, in his note (2) on 
Rom. iv. 3. " In judging Abraham/' says he, 
" God will place on the one side of the account 
his duties, and on the other his performances. And 
on the side of his performances he will place his faith, 
and by mere favour will value it as equal to a com- 
plete performance of his duties, and reward him as 
if he were a righteous person." But, surely, if 
by righteousness be meant conformity to the re- 
quirements of the Divine Law, and it be affirmed, 
that faith is imputed to me instead of my com- 
pliance with these requirements, or, at least, to 
make up for any defects in my obedience, am I 
not at liberty to conclude, nay, what other con- 
clusion can be drawn, but that God relaxes the 
obligations of his Law, and admits me to happi- 
ness in a way consistent with their annulment? 
The influence of such a principle, in weakening 
the bonds of morality, is too obvious to require 
any elucidation. 

" But, if we allow," says Professor Lee, " that 

the Turkish word <xjb j> is equivalent to his transla- 
tion instead (a translation which my opponent 
does not invalidate) as given in the first passage, 



186 



I am still unable to discover what sense different 
from that found in our authorised version is here 
discoverable." The word in the English version 
is "for? " Abraham believed in God, and it was 
counted unto him for righteousness ;" but, I con- 
fess, that of the different meanings of which this 
preposition is susceptible, and certainly ''instead" 
is one of them, it never once entered my mind, 
that such could be its signification in the passage 
under review. We are, indeed, further informed, 
p. 65, that " it is equivalent to the Greek uq and 
the Hebrew b of the original Scriptures, notwith- 
standing our appellant's opinions to the contrary;" 
but the reader must do justice to my opinion, 
though now for the first time expressed, when he 
finds from the first lexicographical authority, that 
in the whole Bible, neither the one preposition, 
nor the other, signifies in any instance " instead 
of," or " in the room of." Parkhurst assigns 
eighteen, and Schleusner not fewer than twenty -six 
different significations to ek, but the disputed 
sense of " instead" is not once taken into the ac- 
count. And with regard to the prepositive *7, no 
such meaning is given to it, either by Parkhurst 
or Gesenius ; but, indeed, if it had, it would have 
made nothing to the present argument ; for what- 
ever force Professor Lee may be disposed to 
ascribe to this preposition in other parts of the 
Hebrew Scriptures, he will not contend that it 



187 

stands for «c, Gen. xv. 6. the passage from which 
the Apostolic quotation is made. 

He proceeds : " If the faith here evinced by 
Abraham was accounted to him instead of righte- 
ousness, in the words of Ali Bey, or for righte- 
ousness, as it stands in our version, I suppose the 
meaning in either case is, that Abraham was 
esteemed righteous, in consequence of the faith 
there spoken of." Ibid. But what authority has 
the Professor for supposing, that any such mean- 
ing can be logically deduced from either of these 
prepositions? In what language has the term 
instead, the sense cf in consequence? What cer- 
tainty can there be in the Scriptures, or indeed in 
any other book, if we may be permitted thus to 
explain particular words and phrases ad libitum ? 
To my mind it appears to be one thing to count 
faith for, or instead of righteousness, and something- 
altogether different to count a person righteous in 
consequence of that faith : the one is the imputation 
of a moral act or quality, in lieu of universal rec- 
titude : the other regards the subject of that ope- 
ration of the heart, as sustaining the character of 
righteous in virtue of the relation in which he has 
been placed by faith. 

With respect to the real meaning of the phrase 
Etc SucaioGwriv, I conceive it to be most satisfactorily 
given by Doddridge on the place, who renders it 
" in order to justification." It is thus also that 



188 

Christ is said to be the end of the law, ug &k<u- 
oGwtiv, "for, or in order to justification to every 
one that believeth," Rom. x. 4. and that with 
the heart man believeth elg SiKaioawriv, " in order 
to," or, as it stands in our version, " unto righteous- 
ness," or justification. In all these instances the 
word Siicaioavvri denotes the grand blessing to be 
obtained, of the conveyance of which faith is the 
appointed instrument, and not a principle to be 
substituted in place of it, or, a succedaneum for 
moral rectitude, which is the sense given in Ali 
Bey. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Examination of Professor Lee's Arguments in Vindication of 
the Mohammedan Sabbath. The Apocalyptic Market-day, 
Sweetmeats of Omnipotence. Meaning of the Word 
" Gospel." Mohammedan Paradise. New Testament 
Sense of the Word " Saints." Tutelary Saints. The 
Pregnancy of the Virgin Mary. The Mohammedan 
Antichrist, 

I shall now consider Professor Lee's Remarks 
in defence of some of the other palpably " false 
" renderings" to which reference was made in the 
Appeal. 

It was there objected, p. 35, to the substitution 
of ***** jumd, " the Day of Assembly," for irapaaKevrj, 
" the Day of Preparation" that the former phrase 
properly designates the Mohammedan Sabbath, and 
that its adoption into the Christian Scriptures 
makes the Evangelist speak of an appropriation of 
the day, which did not take place till several cen- 
turies after he wrote. Conceiving that the word 
anachronism was used not merely as denoting an 
error in the computation of time, but also as sig- 
nifying the ascription of an event or events which 
happened at one particular period, to some other 
period, either antecedent or subsequent, I ven- 



190 

tured to charge the Turkish translator with a 
blunder of this description. Whether my meaning 
was not expressed with sufficient perspicuity, 
and whether the Professor's stricture on this head 
was at all called for, I leave others to judge. 

But he doubts the accuracy of my remark re- 
specting the appropriation of the day as the Mo- 
hammedan Sabbath, and thinks it is not so easy 
to be proved as I seem to have imagined, that 
this appropriation took place several centuries 
after the Evangelist wrote *. How it could take 
place before the time of Mohammedanism, it is 
somewhat difficult to conceive ; and I believe we 
must adopt some new system of chronology ere it 
can be demonstrated, that Islamism was esta- 
blished in the age of the Apostles. That the 
Arabs considered the Friday as sacred, before the 
time of Mohammed, I admit ; but that they kept 
it in honour of the creation, or that they assem- 
bled on that day, as they did after the introduc- 
tion of the new system of religion, does not ap- 
pear to be so clearly made out as my opponent 
would have us believe. The fact, however, that 
previous to its appropriation as the day of Mo- 
hammedan worship, it did not receive the name 
Q$&*A:>.juma, or assembly-day, but was designated 
by that of h^\ ^ jeivmul-arubet, renders it more 

* Remarks, p. 84. 



191 

than probable, that the Arabs borrowed it from 
the Jews, by whom the "day of Preparation" 
was called in the Chaldee dialect tfrDYiy Aru- 
batha, either on account of its being the day before 
the Sabbath, or because it was that on which 
they made the necessary arrangements for the 
day of rest; — the very idea conveyed by the 

Greek Word TrapaaKwr). 

The further discussion, however, of this subject 
is very prudently waved by Professor Lee, who 
proceeds to ask ; " What can our Appellant mean, 
when he says, the translator is guilty of an anar 
chronism? Does he suppose that translators are 
not at liberty to use any words in their transla- 
tions but such as were in use when the original 
itself was composed?" pp. 84, 85. No; he neither 
meant nor supposed any such thing ; but he was, 
and still is of opinion, that it is perfectly incon- 
gruous to make the sacred writers speak of things 
which were not understood to exist in their day, 
as if they were already commonly known. The 
case before us is clearly in point, as is also that 
of the Apocalyptic Market-day, which we shall 
presently consider; and the circumstance, that the 
Apostle Paul introduces the Tatars to the notice 
of the Christian church at Colosse, five centuries 
before they were known either to the Greeks or 
Romans. Were we once to admit the principle 
advocated in the Remarks, I do not see why we 

13 



192 

should not approve of Good Friday, Maundy 
Thursday, Matt. xxvi. 17; Parish Priests, Titus 
i. 5; Parish Clerks, 1 Tim. iii. 12; "now from 
the time the clock struck six, until it struck nine," 
&c. Matt, xxvii. 45. All these renderings (ex- 
cept the first) are found in translations of the New 
Testament, and most of them in one made by a 
person, no less skilled, perhaps, in the art of trans- 
lation, than those who made the Arabic versions 
alleged by Professor Lee as authorities to vindi- 
cate the use of &**»>• jumd, the Mohammedan 
Sabbath. 

But we come to a more serious fault, though I 
am sorry to say, it is one that Professor Lee 
treats with the same spirit of levity which charac- 
terizes too many of his Biblical criticisms. It is 
that which occurs Rev. i. 10. "I was in the 
Spirit, c&&£ j\k j> bir Bazar goninda, on a mar- 
ket day," instead of " the Lord's day." " A 
very alarming conclusion truly!" says the Pro- 
fessor*. It will be allowed, that it required no 
great stretch of foresight to predict, that the in- 
dividual capable of thus treating a glaring perver- 
sion of the language of Holy Scripture, would not 
scruple to undertake its defence; but that any 
person professing serious godliness, and a native 
of Britain too, the glory of whose country is the 

* Remarks, p. 86, 



193 

distinguishing respect there paid to the sacred 
day, compared with the manner in which it is 
spent in other parts of Europe, should undertake 
to advocate so gross a dereliction of Christian 
feeling, is to me, I confess, perfectly inexplicable ; 
and I trust, it will never be said, that such a ren- 
dering received the sanction of a Society esta- 
blished for the sole purpose of propagating the 
" word of God," whoever may be their advisers, 
or however strongly advice to this effect may have 
been urged upon them. The subject may not, 
indeed, affect those who reside in places where 
public marketing is prohibited on that day, to the 
same degree it must such as have weekly pre- 
sented to their view all the enormities attendant 
on its conversion into a day of merchandise ; but 
still, it cannot but appear utterly repugnant to 
every sacred association, to hear such a practice 
spoken of without reprobation by an inspired 
Apostle. Just as soon may it be affirmed, that 
Christ hath concord with Belial, or that he that 
believeth hath part with an infidel, or that the 
temple of God agreeth with idols, as that it is 
decorous and proper to translate the above pas- 
sage, "I was in the Spirit on a market-day /" 
Surely after reading such a version, the Christian 
could not but feel the incongruity of joining in the 
song: 

o 



194 

" Welcome sweet day of rest, 
That saw the Lord arise ; 
Welcome to this reviving breast, 
And these rejoicing eyes." 

But let us hear the reasons advanced by Pro- 
fessor Lee in defence of so notorious a breach of 
the principles of Biblical interpretation, and so 
revolting an offence against Christian taste. " Let 
us try to amend the translation in the way pro- 
posed by Dr. Henderson. It should have been 
translated, says he, by djJuj£ ^X. on the Lord's 
day. We have already seen, that by the word 
'Cjj Rabb, the Mohammedans do not understand 
our Lord Jesus Christ, but God, to the exclusion 
of every other being. A Mohammedan wilL, there- 
fore, understand by oStiji CJ1 on God's day, an 
expression which will convey to him no precise 
meaning whatever:" pp. 86, 87. Having, in a 
former chapter fully shewn the futility of my op- 
ponent's reasoning, relative to the restrictive sense 
of the Arabic word C-ij Rabb, and proved, that, 
according to the best usage, it denotes any lord 
or master whatever, it is unnecessary to say more 
in refutation of his assertions on that subject; but 
it seems passing strange, that it should not have 
occurred to him, that the Mohammedans, after 
finding this identical word, iJ. Rabb, applied to 



195 

our Lord Jesus Christ by Ali Bey throughout his 
version, should not conclude, that the person 
here referred to is the same who is generally de- 
signated by the title of Cj. Rabb, by the penmen 
of the New Testament. Nor is it less surprising, 
that he should have been so forgetful as to permit 
himself to employ an objection against my pro- 
posed emendation, which militates with equal 
force against Ali Bey's own translation of the 
parallel phrase, Kvpiaicov Benrvov, 1 Cor. xi. 20. 
^Jbj *Ux dshai Rabbani, "the Lord's Supper." 

Must not a Mohammedan, on Professor Lee's 
principle, understand by these words, God's 
Supper? And would he not be confirmed in his 
opinion by Ali's translation of the 23d verse; 
" For what I delivered unto you, I received of 
(JUJ aE) Allah Tadla) the Most High GodT Nor 
can it be urged against this mode of expression, 
that it is " unknown to the phraseology of Scrip- 
ture;" for we read, Rev. xix. 17. "Come and 
gather yourselves together to the supper of the 
great God" The devotee of Islamism would cer- 
tainly reason as consistently with fair principles 
of interpretation, in calling in the one passage to 
illustrate the other, as the Author of the Remarks 
does, in quoting 1 Cor. v. 5. 2 Cor. i. 14. Phil, 
i. 6. 1 Thess. v. 2. in application to the present 
subject. 

o 2 



196 

With respect to the unintelligibility of the 
phrase, " The Lord's Day," I cannot perceive 
how it should be greater to a Turkish Moham- 
medan than it is to the Mohammedans of Hin- 
dostan, or to the Malays. In the version destined 
for the use of the former, we read, ^d ^Jo^Ijo* 
Chudawendaki den ; and the Malay translators have 
rendered it, hdrij mahd Tuhan. We are told, how- 
ever, p. 90, that " it should be remembered, there 
are certain words or phrases, such as the Lord's 
Day, the Christian Sabbath, &c. in use in Chris- 
tian countries, which would either be unintelligible 
to a Mohammedan, or Heathen, or would give an 
idea totally different from the scope of the original, 
if literally translated." And what is the conclu- 
sion to which we are conducted by this argument ? 
" In a future edition, perhaps, the word might be 
altered with advantage, as it has been the case with 
the version of Luther; but I doubt whether a 
better word could be proposed now *." Is it not 
here distinctly avowed, that in preparing first 
versions of the Scriptures, or such as are destined 
for those nations or tribes that have been hitherto 
destitute of Christian instruction, translators ought 
to reject whatever phraseology they may conceive 
to be unintelligible, and substitute one of their 
own fabrication, how different soever the expres- 

* Remarks, p. 91. 



197 

sions may be from those used in the original ? If 
this principle be just, it will certainly very much 
facilitate the labours of Missionaries and others 
engaged in a work of this nature ; and every pos- 
sible means ought to be adopted, to put them in 
possession of it, that they may be relieved from 
those fetters by which they have hitherto felt 
themselves shackled in the execution of their im- 
portant undertaking. They have only to carry it 
to the full and legitimate extent of its application, 
and the Mohammedans and Heathen will be fur- 
nished with translations of our sacred books, com- 
pletely purged from every expression peculiar 
either to the Jewish or Christian economy, and 
so intelligible, as to supersede the necessity of the 
living instructor. " For my part," remarks Pro- 
fessor Lee*, "I had always supposed that ver- 
sions of the Scriptures should be so made as to 
be intelligible, at least to those for whom they had 
been intended ; and that, how unbending soever 
the phraseology of the originals might be, they 
must be rendered, in a translation, by the phrase- 
ology in use among the people, for whom such trans- 
lation is made, in order that they may understand 
them, however different their style and taste might 
be from that of the original Hebrew and Greek 
texts." It may seem ignominious to advocate the 
cause of unintelligibility ; but no reader of any re- 

* Remarks, p. 151. 



198 

flection will contend, that the Scriptures can be 
universally understood by such as peruse them for 
the first time in any translation : numerous words 
and phrases must be perfectly new to them ; while 
with others they will never be able to connect any 
proper ideas, unless they be taught by such as are 
previously acquainted with their meaning. 

Before the religious public delegate full powers 
to any man or body of men to new-model the 
sacred diction of the Spirit of God, by commuting 
it for the phraseology in use among Infidels and 
Idolaters, it becomes them seriously to reflect on 
the consequences to be apprehended from such 
practice: for, if what the Baron Silvestre de 
Sacy asserts in the Appendix (p. 13) be true, 
that * every intelligible translation is necessarily a 
hind of commentary" must not such versions as 
those made, or to be made, agreeably to the 
canon laid down by Professor Lee, be complete 
commentaries ? And if so, what guarantee have we 
that they will not contain the mind of the trans- 
lators, instead of the mind of the Spirit, and that 
the most absurd and dangerous errors will not be 
circulated under the sacred character of the word 
of God? The adoption of such a principle, how- 
ever, is totally at variance with the fundamental 
rule of the Bible Society, which ordains, that the 
copies to be circulated by it, be " without note 
and comment;" and, if I am not much mistaken, 

15 



199 

the great majority of the friends of that institu- 
tion will be disposed to question the propriety of 
constituting the individual, who professes this 
principle, the sole guardian and editor of any one 
version of the inspired oracles of God. For, after 
so explicitly and unblushingly avowing his appro- 
bation of the unhallowed rendering market day 
instead of the Lord's day, what security have 
we that he will not take equal, if not still more 
daring, liberties with the sacred text ? 

Leaving the reader to examine the remarks of 
Professor Lee, on the encouragement given by 
the above rendering to the desecration of the 
Christian Sabbath, it is only necessary to add, 
on this passage, that when I said the Russian 
name of the day, Voskresenie, " Resurrection," 
was most appropriate, I never meant to affirm 
that it was at all appropriate as a Biblical render- 
ing, but merely referred to it as the common 
designation of the day in the popular language of 
the Russians, and as strikingly descriptive of that 
glorious event which the first day of the week was 
instituted to celebrate. 

The next point to which we must advert, is that 
respecting the Sweetmeats of Omnipotence. It was 
shewn (Appeal, p. 44), that in this bombastic 
style, Ali Bey has translated the simple word 
fxawa, Manna, John vi. 31. and the authority of 
Golius and Meninsky was produced in proof of 



200 

the accurate interpretation of the Turkish words. 
Now, does Professor Lee so much as attempt to 
fix upon me the charge of inaccuracy, in making 
the statement contained in the note ? Or does he 
endeavour to invalidate the testimony of these two 
celebrated Orientalists ? No ; he only doubts 
" whether what I cited were done in a way suf- 
ficiently impartial to entitle me to the meed of 
praise, to which he says I aspired *-.*' In reply to 
this, I can only assure the reader, that if I did not 
insert the whole of what stands in the Lexicons 
under the phrase in dispute, it was not done with 
any fraudulent intent, but merely to save room ; 
as all that the Lexicographer adds, goes merely 
to shew, what every reader of Ali Bey's version, 
or of my note, must at once conclude, that by 
" Sweetmeats of Omnipotence/' the Turks mean 
" The Manna of the Hebrews." But let us ex- 
amine, for a moment, what the Professor has to 
say in defence of this delectable phraseology. 

1. His first argument is German usage, which, 
of course, we may pass. 

2. " The phrase used by Ali Bey is not without 
a parallel in Scripture, however paraphrastical it 
may be thought to be f-" Here we have the same 
hackneyed remark obtruded upon us, which was 
so often employed in respect to the Divine Names, 

* Remarks, p. 125 ( f Ibid. p. 126. 



201 

and is deemed universally applicable, but which 
no person of an enlightened and impartial mind 
can ever admit as available in Biblical translation. 
It will also be questioned, whether the phrases, 
" bread of heaven," and " food of the mighty 
ones," be exactly parallel to Sweetmeats, or Pastry 
of Omnipotence. In Psalm lxxviii. 25, the word 
\Q Man does not occur, but in the preceding 
verse, where Luther retains it, and does not give 
it by Himmelbrod, or Heaven-bread, as the reader 
would conclude, from the manner in which this 
German phrase is referred to in the Remarks. 
The compound, Himmelbrod, " Bread of Heaven," 
is given by the Reformer as a translation of 
CDtypi degan shamaim, which is, however, 
more literally rendered by " Corn of Heaven," 
in our authorized version. 

3. " But why," the Doctor will repeat, " did 
he not use the word ^o Mann? I answer, if 
he will look again into his Meninski and Golius, 
he will probably find, that this word is used to 
designate a medicine, just as the word Manna 
does among ourselves. And, in order to avoid 
this, Ali Bey preferred the phrase under consi- 
deration*." If Professor Lee be serious in assign- 
ing the medicinal sense, which, it seems, also 
attaches to the word, as the cause why our 

'* Remarks, p. 126. 



202 

Turkish translator preferred, in the present in- 
stance, the periphrase" Sweetmeats of Omnipotence,' 1 
I hope he will not be offended if I ask him, what 
he conceives to be the reason that induced Ali 
Bey to use the word ^ Mann? Heb. ix. 4. This 
circumstance, as well as the use of the word in 
the Koran, I noticed in the Appeal; but both 
seem to have escaped the obversation of my 
opponent. It is not, however, in these passages 
alone, that it has been adopted. It is also used, 
Rev. ii* 17. And, if any reliance can be placed 
on the Berlin and Paris Pentateuchs, it occurs, 
Exod. xvi. 15. 31. 33. 35. in all which places, 
unfortunately for the Professor's hypothesis, it 
cannot be understood as signifying " a medicine," 
but, with the exception of that in the Revela- 
tions, designates the manna which descended 
from heaven for the nourishment of the children 
of Israel. 

4. The last, and we may suppose, the strongest 
ground for the use of the phrase " Sweetmeats of 
Omnipotence," is, its adoption by the Metropolitan 
of Angouri in his edition of the Turkish Psalter, 
where we have both the word, and its interpreta- 
tion: Kovrptr x£X€a<"7 fiawarj. " The Metropolitan," 
says Professor Lee, " must be left to answer for 
himself and Ali Bey ; and I have no doubt his 
answer will be satisfactory*." For himself this 

* Remarks, p. 127. 



203 

prelate may be left to answer ; but I incline to 
think it rather betokens a sense of weakness to 
devolve upon him the onus proband!, relative to 
Ali Bey, which the Professor had taken so man- 
fully upon himself. As to the satisfactory nature 
of the answer to be expected from his Eminence, 
I will not forestall the judgment of the reader by 
any anticipatory remarks. 

Having expended his critical reasons, the author 
of the Remarks thus proceeds : " Whether such 
phraseology is scrupulously to be avoided, may 
be determined from the consideration of the word 
Gospel, adopted by our own translators ; a word 
compounded of God and spel, as the best transla- 
tion of the Greek EvayyeXiov. If we try Dr. Hender- 
son's principle, then, upon this word, will it not 
appear, that our Lord came to preach the spel 
(history, account, or speech) of Omnipotence, or of 
God, to the poor*?" Some readers will rather 
be disposed to doubt the aptness of the example 
here adduced ; but the etymology here assigned 
to the word Gospel, and consequently the reason- 
ing founded upon it, falls to the ground, the 
moment we introduce an Anglo-Saxon scholar 
into the arena. " Godspel," says the learned Dr. 
Marshall, of Lincoln College, Oxford, " Lat. 
Evangelium; Anglis hodiernis Go spell. InMlfrici, 
ut creditur, Glossario nondum edito legitur, Evan- 

* Remarks, p. 127= 



204 

gelium vel bonum nuncium, Godspel. Hoc itaque 
tantundem valet ac Gr tecum 'EvayytXiov. Vox est 
composita ex God ei spel, quorum prius significat 
tarn Deus, quam Bonus : ut, Nys nan man g6d 
buton God ana. Lat. Nemo bonus, nisi solus 
Deus. Luc. xviii. 19. Qua? quidem God et god 
nulla sazpissimk. gaudent distinctione orthographicd, 
in codicibus saltern manu exaratis" Observ. in vers. 
Anglo-Sax. p. 509. And again, p. 510. " Nihil 
aliud ergo significat Francorum Cuatchundida 
quam Bonum indicium, sive nuncium ; quod Sax- 
onico Godspel aptissime conformatur. Ex hac 
linguarum cognatarum harmonid non obscure evin- 
citur, nostrum Godspel potius 'EvayyeXiov signifi- 
catu exprimere, quam Dei historia; quod iamen 
doctis quibusdam magis placuisse video." " Gospel," 
•therefore, does not signify "the spel (history, 
account, or speech) of God," but " the good his- 
tory or account;" admirably corresponding in its 
etymology to the Greek ev good, and ayytXia a 
message. But the reader may further consult 
Junius in his Etymol. Anglican, in Gospel, and 
Dr. Adam Clarke's Preface to the Gospel of 
Matthew. 

In the Appeal, p. 43, in the note, I adduced as 
another instance of improper translation : Luke 
xxiii. 43. " This day shalt thou be with me 
c&XX*. Jennetda, in (the Mohammedan) Para- 
dise. Is it asked : what other word could Ali 



205 

Bey have employed 1 I have only to reply, that 
the Arabic of the Polyglott, the Propaganda and 
Sabat; Martyn's Persic; Seaman and Brunton's 
Turkish; and Frazer's Tatar versions, have all 
W)<sj Firdaws, the very word from which the 
Greek TrapdSuaos is derived. The Persic of the 
Polyglott has v^wJ*^j bihisht, but \j»fif Firdaws 
occurs in Ali Bey's own version. 2 Cor.xii.4." 

On this Professor Lee begins his remarks, as 
follows : " This is all as groundless as it is plausi- 
ble*," by which the reader might be led to con- 
clude, that the words referred to were not to be 
found in any of these versions. It is a fact, how- 
ever, that they are so found ; and I may now add, 
that {j»)Af Firdaws and not e^U- Jennet is the 
rendering of the Malay, the Hindosianee and the 
Armenian- Turkish versions. 

He proceeds : " The Greek Trapa&Krog is not 
derived from ^jdJjirdaus, but the contrary, as 

the Oriental writers themselves allow ; that part 
of the remark is, therefore, futile. " If, instead 
of this mere counter-assertion, we had been 
favoured with unexceptionable Oriental authori- 
ties, some benefit might have accrued to the 
literary world from the fresh agitation of this 
etymological question ; but as the Professor has 
not condescended to produce them, we must still 

* Remarks, p. 124. 



206 

abide by the ancient Greek derivation given in 
the Onomasticon of Julius Pollux : ol Se 7rapa$u<joi, 

fiapfiapiKov uvai Sokovv rovvofia, tjkei kcl\ Kara avvrjOuav 
tig yj>y)Giv aWrivncrjv, wg Kai aWa iroWa rwv TitpcriKtov* 

ix. 13. I will only add, that if any person is dis- 
posed to question the Persic origin of the word, 
we may, perhaps, not be far from the mark, if we 
trace it to the Armenian, in which it is still found, 
and is the common word for garden. 

The Professor adds : " In the next place, the 
word ij»j<sj Jirdaus conveys to a Mohammedan 
ear the idea of Mohammed's paradise just as 
much as the word &?- above objected to, or the 
word u^nm^ Bihisht does," and refers us to a 
couple of passages in the Koran, in which { j^^ J i 
Fir daws is employed to designate Paradise. That 
it is so used, is a fact with which I was not un- 
acquainted at the time I wrote the Appeal; still 
I considered myself fully warranted to denomi- 
nate u^vk- Jennet the Mohammedan paradise, be- 
cause I never found it used by Christian transla- 
tors; because it is the word generally employed 
by Mohammedans to denote their heaven of 
sensual delight; and because, on the contrary, 
\j*}AJ Firdaws is not of frequent occurrence. I 
do not expect, however, that these reasons will 
have much weight with my antagonist ; but I 
hope he will satisfy the public on one point: 



207 

How it comes that all the versions (Ali Bey's 
alone excepted) should, with the most unanimous 
consent, reject the word commonly used by 
Mohammedans to depict their paradise, and that 
most of them should agree in adopting another 
word, which is also, but by no means so fre- 
quently employed for this purpose ? 

Fault was also found with the manner in which 
Ali Bey had rendered the word ayioi " saints." 
Instead of rendering it by the proper word JuAdda 
kadisler, " holy persons," he translates it JUI^I 

ewlialer, which, according to the definition com- 
monly given in the lexicons, signifies "friends or 
favourites of God," and also great men, and minis- 
ters of state*. All this is granted by Professor 
Lee f ; but he is not satisfied with me for omit- 
ting to quote Meninsky in proof of the latter part 
of the definition, although his authority after all 
only goes to shew the combination of the word 
with another (cJj«) dawlet) signifying state or 

empire, and thereby restricting the meaning in 
this case to state-saints, men high in office, favour, 
and dignity, in contradistinction from saints in 
the religious, or, to speak more properly, in the 
superstitious sense. Having left that "great 
storehouse" of Oriental learning, the Professor 
adds : " The word, therefore, in its proper accepta* 

* Appeal, p. 38. f Remarks, pp. 96, 97. 



208 

Hon, means saints, as being favourites of God; 
which every one who has been in the habit of 
reading Mohammedan books, knows to be the 
case." But does he mean to say, that a word 
properly signifying " saints as being favourites of 
God," is a fit word by which to express the a-yiot 
of the New Testament ? Would it not be sup- 
posed, that to impute to him such an opinion, is 
to torture his words with the view of rendering 
him ridiculous in the eyes of every person of 
solid acquirements in the art of Biblical interpre- 
tation? Yet he actually sums up the whole of 
his criticisms in the following manner : " We 
may, therefore, now leave the word JUy just as 
we found it, as being no less expressive of the 
term ayioi, than the word jLjj«x* which is else- 
where used*." 

May it not be permitted, however, to enquire, 
by what law of criticism are we warranted to 
affix to ayiog the sense of friend or favourite ? Is 
it because every one who is holy enjoys the 
favour of God ? Professor Lee surely never can 
assign so weak a reason ; for, on the same prin- 
ciple we might affirm, that it signifies an heir, it 
being a fact, that in Scripture the saints are 
called heirs of God. How then can he possibly 
have come by an interpretation which excludes 
the idea of purity from ayioc; an idea which is 
* Remarks, p. 98, 



209 

not only radically inherent in the Greek word, 
but inseparately attaching to it in all the passages 
of the New Testament in which it occurs? It is 
not impossible that he took it from the fifth sense 
of Schleusner : " Qui est Christianorum ccetui an- 
numerandus, cui contigit beneficio Dei singulari reli- 
gionis Christiana cognitio, nullo scepe ad mores animique 
affectionem respectu habito" In proof of this strange 
definition, the lexicographer refers to Acts ix. 13, 
14. 32. 41. xxvi. 10. Rom. i. 7. viii. 27. xiii. 13. 
xvi. 15. 1 Cor. vi. 1, 2. vii. 14. Rev. xiii. 7. xx, 
6. but I venture to assert, that in no one of these 
passages is the name ayioi given to Christians, 
merely because they were members of the Chris- 
tian Church, or participants of the external ad- 
vantages of the Christian dispensation, but on the 
contrary they are so called because they either 
were in reality, or at least professedly nyiaoiikvoi kv 
a\r]9ua, " sanctified by the truth," in consequence 
of which, the Apostle could address them : " And 

SUCll were Some of yOU, aWa aTrzXovaaaQz, a\\a 

■hyiaaOriTs, but ye are washed, ye are sanctified" &c. 
John xvii. 19. 1 Cor. vi. 11. In consideration of 
the direct tendency of the above interpretation, 
to instil false views of Scripture into the minds 
of commencing students of theology, and lead 
them to rest satisfied with the name and form, 
instead of the power of godliness, it is not saying 
too much of the lexicon which contains it, to 



210 

adopt the language of the learned Bishop ol 
Limerick, and ask : " However useful and even 
indispensable on the table of the staid and prin- 
cipled divine, should this mingled mass of truth 
and falsehood, of acute philology and licentious 
innovation become the oracle of every unfledged 
and implicit theologian*?" If the principle 
adopted by Professor Lee with the suffrage of 
Schleusner, be admitted as valid, it will be one 
reason in addition to many others for serious ap- 
prehension, " that from those theological works 
which students are more and more taught to 
respect, as guides to the critical knowledge of 
Scripture, much confusion, much obscurity, re- 
peated contradictions, and a fatal habit of explain- 
ing away the most pregnant truths of Christianity, 
•may be superinduced upon, or rather substi- 
tuted for, our manly, sound, and unsophisticated 
English theology|." 

But there is another acceptation of the word 
jXx}}] ewlialer, " saints," no less proper than that 

given in the Appeal from Meninsky, and ap- 
proved by Professor Lee: viz. " tutelary saints," 
patrons, protectors, guardians, which seems still 
better to suit, Rev. viii. 3. in Ali Bey's version, 
and, according to which, the ^JU j dLiU]jl ewliale- 
run dualeri, i( prayers of the protectors ," will sig- 

* Dr. Jebb's Sacred Literature, p. 328. f Ibid. p. 51. 



21 i 

nify the intercessions of tutelary saints in behalf of 
their votaries ! Such is, in fact, the established 
and current Koranic meaning of the word, as will 
appear from the following quotations : Surah II. 
100, 101. " Dost thou not know that God is Al- 
mighty ? Dost thou not know that unto God be- 
longeth the kingdom of heaven and earth ? Neither 
have ye any protector f:\Jj well) or helper except 
God :" ver. 258. " God is the patron (^ well) of 
those who believe." III. 27. " Let not the faithful 
take the infidels for their protectors fUlj! ewlia.)" 
61. " God is the patron (\ 3 well) of the faithful." 
118. " God was the Supporter of them both fU^Jj 
weliuhuma); and in God let the faithful trust." 
IV. 47. " God is a sufficient Patron (bl^ welia), 
and God is a sufficient Helper." 91. "Take not 
friends fUl^l ewlia) from among them : take no 
friend (Id^ welia) from among them, nor any 
helper." 118, "Whosoever taketh Satan for his 
patron fUjj welia) besides God, shall surely perish 
with manifest destruction." 138. " They who take 
the unbelievers for their protectors fLJjl ewlia), do 
they seek for power with them ? Surely all power 
belongs to God." VI. 51. " They shall have no 
patron (^ weli), nor intercessor, except him 
(their Lord)." 69. " A soul becometh liable to 
destruction for that which it committeth : it shall 

v 2 



212 



have no patron (^ tvelij nor intercessor besides 
God." VII. 193—195. " Verily the false deities 
whom ye invoke besides God, are servants like 
unto you. Call therefore upon them, and let them 
give you an answer, if ye speak truth. Have they 
feet to walk with? Or, have they hands to lay 
hold with ? Or, have they eyes to see with ? Or, 
have they ears to hear with ? Say, call upon your 
companions, and then lay a snare for me : defer it 
not ; for God is my protector* ( ^ well) who sent 
down the book of the Koran, and he protectetk 
Cifa?k -ypiaxodia) the righteous." These specimens 
which I have given in the words of Sale's trans- 
lation, lest any suspicion might attach to my own 
manner of rendering them, are sufficient to shew 
the common acceptation of the word in the Mo- 
hammedan Bible: to which, I shall only add, 
that it occurs in the same sense on the seal of 
the Emperor of Morocco, ^1 &\ Joe ^\ sZsr* 
ey^ *a!j <xBl JacU-J thus rendered by Silvestre de 
Sacy*: "Mohammed, fils d'Abd-allah, fils d'ls- 
mael. Dieu est son protecteur et son seigneur." 
Is it therefore too much to affirm, that if with this 
sense prominent in his mind, or rising from the 
perusal of any of these passages, a follower of the 
Arabian prophet, or one of the Oriental Christians 

* Chrestomathie Arabe, Tom. III. p. 263, 



213 

who is familiar with Arabic, were to read Rev. 
viii. 3. in the version of AH Bey, he will naturally 
understand the saints, the^lUl^l ewlialer there spoken 
of, to be such as have been made the objects of trust 
by mortals, whose protecting care has been confided 
in, and whose intercessions have been assiduously 
supplicated as efficacious with the Most High? 
Ask M. Andrea de Nerciat, how he views the pas- 
sage, and, if I am not greatly mistaken, he will 
give the same interpretation. 

But Professor Lee will accuse me of incon- 
sistency in endeavouring to prove that Ali Bey 
made his version both Mohammedan and Roman 
Catholic. To this it is only necessary to reply, 
that Ali does not appear to have had any settled 
notions whatever on the subj ec t of religion . He was 
born a Catholic, lived a Mohammedan, and wished, 
we are told, to die a member of the Church of 
England : Vir erat Polonus natus, mult arum lingua- 
rum, sed religionis in speciem Turcicce, re ipsa, Deus 
scit cujus, &c *. Was consistency to be expected 
in a version executed by such a character as 
this? 

It was objected to the rendering Luke ii. 5. 
" With Mary, who being his espoused wife, was 
great with child;" that it suggests the idea of her 
being pregnant in consequence of her connexion 

* Meninsky Thesaurus, Ling, Orient. Prooem* 



214 

with Joseph*. In reply to this, Professor Lee 
dexterously conjures up a supposition which he 
imagines I must entertain, " that as Mary was 
with child, when she is said to have been the 
espoused wife of Joseph, it must appear probable, 
at least, that this was in consequence of an im- 
proper connection; an inference," he adds, "which 
may be drawn from the original text, or our own 
authorized version, with as much propriety, as it 
can from the text of the Turkish translation f. M 
I appeal to the reader whether any such sense is 
even seemingly implied in the terms of my objection? 
Did I hot print the word being in Italics, expressly 
to shew, that it was upon this word that the point 
at issue turned, and not upon ^^ ewreti, "his 
wife," or ^JUJ nishanlu, " espoused," on which 
words the Professor expends so much unneces- 
sary criticism ? The proposition contained in my 
objection, and that which he deduces from the 
original and our common version, are by no means 
identical. The latter read thus: "With Mary 
his espoused wife, being great with child :" the 
former reads, " With Mary, who being his es- 
poused wife, was great with child," The one 
simply states that she was pregnant : the other, 
that she was pregnant in consequence of her con- 
nexion with Joseph. 

* Appeal, p. 43, note. f Ttemarks, p. 121. 



215 

But although my opponent affects at first not 
to see the precise point of the argument, he is at 
last obliged to take up the participle «-j^1 olup; 
but tells his readers, that both the Turks and Per- 
sians " introduce words of this kind, just as the 
Greeks do, without any other intention than that 
of continuing the narrative, till the sentence is 
concluded in a verb in its proper tense and per- 
son ; and not for the purpose of assigning a reason 
for the events related *." Admitting, that in cer- 
tain connexions, this participial form, both of the 
substantive verb j.^) olmak, and of ordinary verbs, 
is used with a view to continue the narrative, I 
nevertheless believe it would rather puzzle Pro- 
fessor Lee, with all his practice in the Turkish, to 
establish the position, that it is never introduced 
" for the purpose of assigning a reason for the 
events related." Let us try a passage or two 
from the specimen he has given us from Ali Bey, 
at the end of his Appendix, adhering scrupulously 
to the Professor's own words : " Your eyes shall 
be opened, and ye, being fu-^1 ohip) like Gods, 
shall know good and evil. The woman seeing 
fuj^ gorup) then that the fruit of the tree was 
good, &c. she took. At that time, the eyes of 
both being opened (w^T atchilup), they knew that 

* Remarks, p. 122. 



216 

they were naked. Having sewed (^^ clikup) fig- 
leaves one to another, they made wrappers for 
wrapping themselves." To these instances, I shall 
add a couple from the New Testament; Matt, 
ii. 13. ** Being fu-^ olup) divinely warned in a 
dream that they should not return unto Herod, 
they departed to their own country by a different 
way." 2 Tim. iv. 17. '■' But the Most High Lord 
being fu-^ji olup) with me, imparted strength to 
me." Now, I would simply ask, Was not the 
knowledge of good and evil to result from our first 
parents being as Gods ? Did not Eve take the fruit 
because she saw that it was good ? Did they not 
discover that they were naked, in consequence of 
their eyes being opened ? Was not the formation 
of the fig-leaves into wrappers the effect of their 
being sewed together ? Did not the wise men de- 
part by a different route in consequence of the hea- 
venly admonition? And was not Paul strengthened 
in consequence of the presence of his Divine Master? 
Are not these instances perfectly parallel with that 
under consideration ? Do they not manifestly ex- 
hibit the gerund, not as a mere continuative, but 
as specifying the cause of what follows ? 

The Professor's philological criticism on the 
word "ijf ewreti, is equally destitute of founda- 
tion. " The truth is," says he, p. 121, " the word 
^Jjf- ewreti, here used, does not necessarily mean 



217 

wife, but woman, in the sense of the Greek yvvri" 
Let us again call in Ali Bey to our aid, and let 
him be umpire between us: Matt, xxvii. 19. " His 
wife (Jfjyz ewreti) sent that they might say to 
him," &c. Acts v. 1. " With Sapphira his wife 
(J?jf- ewreti) ." Had we been told that &>jf ewret, 
in its separate form, signified woman, in the sense 
of ywrj, it would have been an undisputed truth ; 
but in the case before us, it happens to be in 
alliance with the suffix <J< i, denoting the third 
person singular of the possessive pronoun, and 
rendering it equivalent to the Greek, v ywrj avrov, 
which the Professor may, indeed, render into 
English by his woman, but then the word woman 
must be taken in the low, or vulgar sense, or, as 
it is sometimes used by foreigners, who say, my 
woman, meaning thereby, my wife. 

I shall conclude this chapter with Dedjial, the 
Mohammedan Antichrist. In Ali Bey's version 
of 1 Johnii. 18. the Apostle is made to say : " Ye 
have heard that JU*J Dedjial cometh" — a thing, 
I observed in the Appeal, p. 46, which is per- 
fectly false : nobody ever having heard of the 
coming of Dedjial till the time of Mohammed, by 
whom an imaginary being of this name was intro- 
duced to the notice of his followers. It was ad- 
mitted, that the cognate dagolo is found in the 
ancient Syriac version; but then, it was con- 



218 

tended that it occurs there unaccompanied with 
Mohammedan ideas. Professor Lee, however, 
attempts to justify the use of the word. Availing 
himself of my concession relative to the Syriac 
version, he argues : First, that " the Christians of 
Syria had heard of this JU^J Dedjial at least five 
hundred years before Mohammed was born:" and 
Secondly, that " as the Christians of Arabia were 
formerly of the Syrian communion, nothing can 
be more probable than, that this word was in use 
among them, and understood as designating the 
Antichrist*." But it must be recollected, that 
however nearly the two words Dagolo and Dedjial 
be related to each other in an etymological point 
of view, they are not convertible terms ; conse- 
quently, however early the Syrian Christians 
may have heard of Dagolo, they knew nothing of 
" this Dedjial" with whom alone we have to do 
on the present occasion. Again, if the Arabian 
Christians ever derived any such word from those 
of Syria, how does it happen that it is not to be 
found in any of the Arabic versions ? If the word 
JU.J Dedjial was already introduced among them, 
and had obtained currency for so many centuries 
as a designation of the New Testament Antichrist, 
why did they not employ it ? I am here arguing 
on the supposition, that some one or other of the 
Arabic versions, at present known in Europe, was 

* Remarks, pp« 136, Vol. 



219 

made by those Christians, and designed for public 
and private use ', but even viewing this as pro- 
blematical, and supposing these versions to be 
the production of a more recent period, what 
satisfactory reason can be assigned for the trans- 
lator's not adopting the word as a designation of 
Antichrist, seeing it had already been thus ap- 
plied throughout the Mohammedan world? It 
cannot be urged, that they were ignorant of its 
use ; and we may consider it as certain, that if 
Professor Lee had been one of them, he would 
infallibly have introduced it. It is more than 
probable, however, that they had the same 
scruples with Seaman, Brunton, Frazer, Martyn, 
Sabat, and all other Christian translators, the 
authors of the Malay version alone excepted, who 
may have been ignorant of the ridiculous ideas 
combined with the word by Mohammedans, and 
merely adopted it because it was employed by 
them to denote Antichrist. 

The reasoning of the Professor, relative to our 
rejection of the words Heaven, Paradise, Hell, the 
Earth, &c. because the Mohammedan commen- 
tators have framed some ridiculous stories re- 
specting them, and the name of Peter, because 
the Catholics have framed a ridiculous hypothesis 
upon it, is altogether aside from the point. These 
words have their common and appropriate use in 
all languages, altogether independant of the er- 
11 



220 

roneous ideas which some particular people or 
denomination may attach to them ; but JU*i> 
Dedjial is restricted in its application to the Mo- 
hammedan Antichrist exclusively ; consequently, 
by adopting it into any part of the Christian 
Scriptures, we give a sense to the passage which 
it was never intended to convey. Nor can the 
plea of necessity be urged; it having been already 
shewn in the Appeal, that in the Arabic, the 
older Turkish and the Persic versions, a phrase 
has been adopted, which strictly signifies " The 
opponent or adversary of the Messiah." 



CHAPTER IX. 

Cases of Eunuchism. Matt. xix. 12. " Hell" for " Everlast- 
ing.^ Signification of the Phrase, (t To be in Christ" 
Futility of Professor Lees Reasoning in Defence of the 
Omission of the Pronoun ovtoi, Rev. xix. 9. and the Ima- 
ginary Reading iv r<*> /3t/3Xe&>, xx. 12. His Exclusion of 
the Worship of the Lamb from Rev. vii. 10. Shouldering 
the Cross, al ypa<pai improperly rendered by " Law" and 
" Divine Books." The Case of the Tatars. Col. iii. 11. 
Mohammedan Phrase " Lord of the Worlds." Netu Cove- 
nant. 1 John ii. 7. 

Proceeding in our examination of Professor 
Lee's Remarks on the subject of the false ren- 
derings charged upon the version of Ali Bey, 
we come next to consider the case of the 
eunuchs, Matt. xix. 12. The passage in the 
Appeal, on which he animadverts, is as fol- 
lows: " m^) ^j JXj) sxx& clx& £ Bu sheilere 
dtid olan buile olsun: Let him be thus who is dis- 
posed for such things; i. e. whoever is disposed 
or prepared to become an eunuch, let him sub- 
mit to castration ; it is an act of which I will 
approve. Yet, who does not perceive, that o 
Swa/itvoc x w P £ ^ x^p^rw, has no reference what- 
ever to the cases of emasculation parenthetically 
mentioned as instances of what men are capable 



222 

of bearing ; but to the state of celibacy, rov \6yov 
tovtov, specified in the preceding verse, where the 
identical verb (xwp 0VGL ) * s employed. Seaman 
and Bruton render the passage properly thus: 

jjj^Sl J^' ^1 Mat* <xX*?l dj\s Kabul etmeke kadir 
olan kabul etsun." p. 35. 

After quoting my words, the Professor asks : 
" Does Dr. Henderson here mean to argue, that 
the former part of the 12th verse, which he says 
has been introduced parenthetically, has no re- 
ference whatever to the preceding or following 
context? If he means this, then may the instances 
of emasculation, which he sees, or thinks he sees 
in this parenthesis, be excluded*." I might leave 
it to the candid reader to decide, whether my ex- 
pressions possibly admit of the construction here 
put upon them ; but I cannot help expressing 
my surprise, that any such misconception could 
for a moment be imputed to me, since it was dis- 
tinctly stated, that " the cases of emasculation 
were parenthetically mentioned as instances of what 
men were capable of bearing? and consequently were 
designed most pointedly to corroborate the doc- 
trine taught in the preceding context. The posi- 
tion, therefore, which my opponent assumes being 
hypothetically false, the argument founded upon 
it must be false likewise. 

* Remarks, p. 79. 



223 

Another instance of strange misconception, not 
however of my words, but of those of our Saviour, 
occurs in the following paragraph. After shewing 
that we are agreed in referring the reception spoken 
of, not to the state of emasculation mentioned in 
the 12th verse, but to that of celibacy mentioned 
in the 10th, the Professor asks : " If celibacy 
only is meant in the former context, and if this 
twelfth verse is an explanation of what was there 
laid down generally, how does it come to pass, 
that emasculation has here been recommended as 
profitable* ''?" I do not mean to affirm, that he re- 
presents our Lord as recommending the utility of 
emasculation ; this sentiment he does not hold ; 
but I certainly think I am warranted to affirm, 
that he conceives the passage to contain a recom- 
mendation of the state of celibacy as profitable; for 
such, in plain language, is his state of metaphori- 
cal emasculation. Now, I believe, it may be con^ 
Mently maintained, that in J:his passage, Christ 
recommends as profitable, neither the one state 
nor the other. He is merely meeting an extreme 
case, which had been put in the form of an objec- 
tion by his disciples. Having heard the authori- 
tative decision, which he gave to the question 
proposed by the Pharisees, they said : " If the 
case of the man be so with his wife, it is good 
not to marry," ver. 10. If the conjugal state be 

* Remarks, p. 80. 



224 

attended with such serious inconveniencies, 
arising from these severe restrictions, it is more 
eligible not to enter into it ; for although a man 
may not have his domestic peace wounded by 
the actual infidelity of his wife, yet her temper 
and conduct may be otherwise so bad, as to prove 
a source of constant annoyance to him. To this 
observation, which was made by the disciples, 
with the view of obtaining a solution of the diffi- 
culty, our Lord replies, that however preferable a 
state of celibacy might seem from this view of the 
inexpedience of matrimony, it was, nevertheless, 
a state by no means to be recommended to man- 
kind as profitable. Ci All men cannot receive this 
saying :" they cannot live in such a state. It is 
not their duty, but is the case only with certain 
individuals who have received this peculiar gift 
from God, with a view to enable them to accom- 
plish infinitely more important ends than those 
for the attainment $f which marriage was insti- 
tuted. Nor must such consider, that they have 
any intolerable burden imposed upon them in 
being deprived of the comforts of the married 
state. It is what some endure from a natural 
defect ; others have been incapacitated for enter- 
ing into that state by a cruel act on the part of 
their fellow-men ; and there are even some who 
have incapacitated themselves, in order, as they 
think, more effectually to please God. Whoever, 



225 

therefore, is called by circumstances (8in>ajum,Ucet 
mihi, decet, oportet me. Wahl's Clavis Nov. Test.) 
to lead an unmarried life, let him do it without 
grudging. 

Such, I conceive, to be the natural import and 
bearing of the passage, and its connexion. By 
" the eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for 
the kingdom of heaven's sake," I am not the first 
to suppose, that our Lord means the Therapeutse 
or contemplative Essenes, of whom great numbers 
abounded at that time in Judaea ; and whoever con- 
siders the excessive austerities to which, we are 
informed, they otherwise submitted, and the un- 
sparing manner in which they treated their bodies, 
(u<j>uha (twjuutoc, Coloss. ii. 23.) in order to repress 
every impure desire, will not deem it in any de- 
gree improbable, that among other modes of 
corporeal discipline obtaining among the mem- 
bers of this sect, that of eviration was not omitted. 
Nor was the practice confined to them. Ecclesi- 
astical history exhibits numerous instances of 
persons who have thus done violence to nature 
from the same mistaken principle; and, even at 
the present day, there exists in Europe a sect of 
this description, whose growing numbers^are by 
no means inconsiderable, who ground their war- 
rant on this very passage, conceiving, not only 
that the words are to be taken literally, but 



226 



that " emasculation is here recommended as pro- 
fitable." 

Professor Lee may easily imagine, that pos- 
sessed as I was of the knowledge of this fact, I 
must have been strongly inclined to embrace his 
metaphorical view of the subject ; but I am free 
to confess, that though I had consulted the com- 
mentators on this passage, not one of them afforded 
me the least satisfaction. And even my opponent 
himself, after having rather sarcastically stated, 
that " the Doctor is the first orthodox divine, as 
far as my knowledge gt>es, who has discovered 
these cases of emasculation in this passage," and 
affirmed, that " no one, I believe, has proved 
either from the etymology, or the use of the word 
Ewov^oq, that it must necessarily mean an emascu- 
lated person; nor, if it did, that some translated 
or metaphorical sense ought not to be attached 
to it in this place *," proceeds gravely to say, that 
he thinks u the commentators are unanimous in 
supposing, that the word Ewovyog Eunuchs, here 
means nothing more than persons addicted to 
celibacy, either from some natural defect, the cir- 
cumstances in which they have been placed, or 
from the desire of devoting themselves more 
entirely, than they otherwise could, to the ser- 
vice of God." Is it not evident, from the words 

* Remarks, p, 80. 



227 

marked in Italics, that however desirous Professor 
Lee is of getting rid of literal emasculation, he is 
under the necessity of admitting it in the first of 
the cases here specified ? And, if the word must 
be taken literally in the first instance, why not in 
the second? The practice of castrating slaves 
was not uncommon in the East then, any more 
than it is at the present day ; and, indeed, most 
expositors seem to go thus far in explaining the 
word literally. Thus Kuinoel translates the two 
instances : " Qui nati sunt sine extis obscoenis, 
quibus naturaipsa virilitatem ademit;" and "qui- 
bus testiculi demessi sunt aut compressi et con- 
tusi, vel de industria ab aliis, vel casu, ut rebus 
venereis uti nequeant." And to the same pur- 
pose the Professor's own oracle Schleusner; " 1. 
cui ante pubertatem membra virilis exsecta sunt, 
&c. 2. sunt eunuchi ab hominibus exsecti." With 
respect to the second class, I believe few will 
admit, in the present day, that justice is done to 
it by Gregory Naziazen and Theophylact, who 
interpret it of the effect produced upon the minds 
of men by the doctrines of their teachers, or that 
any reference can be had to the forcible act of 
confining young people in monasteries, that they 
may addict themselves to a single life. To con- 
tend that it means, " prevented from matri- 
mony by the circumstances in which they are 
placed," is certainly, to say the least, a very 

i'2 



228 

lame interpretation of the words, " to be made 
eunuchs of men :" for this will apply to the first 
class as well as to the second. But if we must 
interpret the word Ewov^oi Eunuchs in the literal 
sense, in the two first instances, by what rule of 
criticism are we to explain the third metaphori- 
cally ? The thing cannot be thought impossible 
any more than in the other cases; for it has been, 
and still is practised. It may be said, indeed, 
that the custom is so barbarous, and so unnatural, 
that it would be altogether derogatory to the 
character of our Lord to suppose, for a moment, 
that he gave it his sanction. I grant it ; but by 
whom has it been established, that he either 
sanctions it, or recommends it as profitable ? 
This must first be proved, before the conclusion 
here drawn can be fairly charged upon my hypo- 
thesis. The truth is, Christ no more taught 
that men should make themselves eunuchs, than 
he taught that they should be made eunuchs by 
others ; or that it was profitable for them that 
they should be born eunuchs : he merely stated 
the fact, that such instances existed, in order to 
set the minds of his disciples at rest respecting 
the hardship of a case, which seemed to them to 
arise out of the manner in which he had treated 
the subject of divorce. 

In giving the manner in which Seaman has 
rendered the concluding part of the passage, 



229 

which is precisely that of our English version, I 
am charged with not noticing the circumstance, 
that this translator has employed a word in 
rendering Ewou^oe, which never signifies any but 
a castrated person*; but the fact is, this word 
did not occur in the sentence which I adduced 
from that author, and was in no wise connected 
with my argument. But now, that the word 
^-a*. Khasi " a castrate" is brought forward, it 
may not be impertinent to our present question, 
to ask, why the Professor did not inform us, 
that it is the very word used in the Arabic, Persic, 
and Ethiopic versions of the Polyglott; in the 
Arabic N. T. published in London, 1727; and in 
the Arabic of the Propaganda, with the Bible 
Society's edition, of which he tells us, p. 91, he 
had something to do ? Words of precisely the 
same meaning are found in the Vulgate (seipsos 
castraverunt), Armenian, Slavonic, Russian, Polish, 
Anglo-Saxon, German, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish 
versions. In Wiclif, we find the verse thus trans- 
lated : ' ' For ther ben geldyngis, whiche ben thus 
born of the modirs wombe, and ther ben geldyngis 
that ben maad of men, and ther ben geldyngis that 
han geldid hemself for the rewme of hevenes ; He 
that may take ; take he." In a small English quarto 
Testament in my possession, without title-page 
or date, I find the following translation: " For 

* Remarks, p. 82. 



230 

there are some eunuchs which were so born of 
their mother's belly ; and there be some eunuchs 
which be gelded by men; and there be some 
eunuchs which have gelded themselves for the 
kingdom of heaven. He that is able to receive 
this, let him receive it." In one of Barker's black- 
lettered Bibles, on the other hand, we find the 
words rendered pretty nearly in accordance with 
the sense assigned to the passage by Professor 
Lee : " For there are some chaste, which were so 
borne of their mother's bellie ; and there be some 
chaste which be made chaste by men ; and there 
be some chaste which have made themselves 
chaste for the kingdom of heaven. He that is able 
to receive this, let him receive it." 

Whatever may be the etymological meaning of 
the Greek word EwovyoQ, it will not be denied, 
that the Hebrew )m \D Sa?is from the Chaldee 
root vip castravit y evulsit, e.vtirpavit, signifies an 
emasculated person. This is indeed evident from 
Isaiah lvi. 3. " Let not the eunuch say: Behold, 
I am a dry tree,"" And Br. Castell observes under 
the word: Solis, h. e. tDNH J93P Matth. xix. 11. 
vel tDHK ab homine factus (castratus) Zabin. c. 
2. 1. Jevam. 79. 2. Majm. H. DWtt c. 2. invisus 
hie Hebrseis, Deut. xxiii. 1. et Romanis maxime: 
hunc arcebant Leges Jud. a Sacerdotio et Syne- 
drio, Sanhed. 30. 2. et ab Ordinatione Ecclesias- 
tica jus Canonicum tarn Or. quam Occidentalis 
16 



231 

Ecclesise. Attamen apud iEgyptios, Medos, Persas, 
Babylonios, imo Asiaticos fere omnes, et Graecos, 
Barbaras, Afrieanos, Turcasque magno in honore 
habitus ; tandem et apud principes Hebr. a Gen- 
tibus acceptus, s. alio casu ita effectus, Is. 56. 3. 
It is also well known, that it was from the circum- 
stance of castrates being selected to be keepers of 
the royal harems in the East, that the word came 
to be applied to courtiers, or officers of high rank 
in general, without its being necessarily implied, 
that such was literally their condition. In the 
passage before us, it is obvious our Saviour 
does not speak of such officers ; on which 
account nothing can be more ridiculous than 
the rendering of the Syriac version according 
to the strict etymological import of the words : 

L]o .]inci 0,1*21 _ooiS>o|? |cb;o ^So? ^SaioiSo ^L. 2&\ 

x 7 • .. x •"> V..J ^\ * 

UkL»aiiD IjJ\o .Jiioiaiio oooi Ikriiin ji? .U^oik) 

. x . x r 

,]lSQ*> IZoTi^O ^5^iO V»^2L*0Ti0 _00l*£U 0^1 ^Q-iOl* 

o . .... . . ■* 

" For there are some accredited persons who have 
been thus born from their mother's womb ; and 
there are some accredited persons that have been 
accredited by men ; and there are accredited persons 
who have made themselves accredited fox the kingdom 
of heaven." Nor is the translation of Ali Bey, ac- 
cording to Professor Lee, much better. For if 
Ali has " used a word to which no such meaning 
(as that of castration) can properly be attached," but 



232 

which designates " an officer," who either may or 
may not be an emasculated person, it is evident 
the passage must read somewhat as follows : 
" For there are office?^ ( Khadims) who were thus 
born of their mother's womb ; and there are officers 
(Khadims) who have been made officers (Khadims) 
by men ; there are also officers (Khadims) who, for 
the sake of the kingdom of heaven, have made 
themselves officers (Khadims). Let him be thus 
who is disposed for such things." Will the reader 
join the Professor in affirming, that " Ali Bey has, 
therefore, translated the text in such a way, as to 
give the sense found in the original, and no more ?" 
Or will he not rather conclude, that if the sense 
given to the word in Ali's version by his advocate 
be just and unexceptionable, it must speak as 
complete nonsense in reality, as the Syriac does 
etymologically ? 

It is difficult to conceive for what purpose 
Professor Lee could allow himself to make the 
following remarks, p. 81. except it was to throw 
odium upon the Appeal. " Dr. Henderson," says 
he, " gives the following translation of the passage 
of Ali Bey, on which we shall only remark, in his 
own language, that there is nothing in it like ' a 
scrupulous adherence to the order of the original :' 
for what Ali Bey expresses first, he expresses last, 
and vice versa, The Doctor's practice, therefore, 
is in this, as in other places, perfectly at variance 



233 

with his own principles. The translation is this i 
Let him be thus who is disposed for such things'' If 
the reader will turn to page 25 of the Appeal, to 
which reference is here made, he will find, that 
the subject treated of is the unwarrantable inter- 
change of the names God and Lord, and Jesus and 
Christ, in the use of which, AH Bey has not scru- 
pulously adhered to the order of the original, but 
changed, adopted, or omitted them at pleasure ; 
and not the simple construction of words in a 
sentence ; a thing which I have nowhere main- 
tained ought to be followed by a translator. 
Surely my opponent would not have me to give 
the words in the Turkish order : These things for 
disposed being, thus let him be. 

But it is time to take our leave of this passage, 
which I shall do with the observation, that in 
whatever light we view it : whether we consider 
the Ewou^oi to be Eunuchs strictly so called, or 
merely certain officers of high rank and trust, the 
version of Ali Bey is false ; for by adding the 
words " these things" at the end of the verse, the 
attention of the reader is directed to the cases 
mentioned in the preceding part of the verse, 
whether of emasculation or high official trust, in- 
stead of tov \6yov tovtov, the state of celibacy 
mentioned in the 10th verse. 

I stated in the Appeal, p. 35. that Ali Bey 
had rendered to irvp to aiwviov, Matt. xxv. 41. by 



234 

^^T +\s* Gihennem-dteshi, " Hell-jire" instead of 
CfiR iS^ e bdi dtesh, " everlasting-jire" This 
statement was unaccompanied by any remark, as 
I considered the error to be sufficiently glaring 
to carry its own condemnation along with it. 
Now, how does my opponent dispose of it? 
Condemn it outright he could not ; for that would 
have been inconsistent with the character of 
fidelity, which he had given to the Turkish 
version ; but although he cannot deny, that there 
is some difference of meaning between the words 
hell and everlasting, taken separately, and has no 
hesitation in allowing, that " everlasting fire" 
would be " the better and more literal translation 
of the two," he, nevertheless, argues, that "the 
general sense afforded by the context is precisely 
the same;" that " the difference in words is un- 
important;" and that, " as the word used by the 
Turkish translator is not unscriptural, no good 
reason can be assigned why the book should on 
this account be suppressed*." I leave it to those 
who have any just sense of the importance of ac- 
curate translation, and such as are acquainted 
with the Universalist Controversy, to pronounce 
upon the satisfactoriness of these reasons, and to 
say, whether they are equalled by any thing in 
the shape of argument in the Notes to the Soci- 
nian New Testament. 

* Remarks, pp. 83, 81. 152. 



235 

" The next critique," says Professor Lee x " is 
on Rom. viii. !. tjftty iJLXsfr*** ^j**^ 'those who 
are Jesus Christ's/ for kv Xp^rt? Ii?<rov, k in Christ 
Jesus.'* But what does Dr. Henderson under- 
stand by in Christ Jesus ? I suppose he must mean, 
in the faith of Christ Jesus, as it is expressed in the 
Arabic of the Polyglott. If that be the case, then 
those who are his people, are here meant, just as 
it has been expressed in the Turkish, unless it can 
be shewn, that to profess faith in him, and to be 
of his Church or people, must necessarily mean 
different things. The same may be said of his 
next remark on Chap. xvi. 7, where we have 
JjjoU) £s£***> e they believed in Christ/ instead of 
* were in Christ/ than which, I will venture to 
assert, a better translation cannot be given *." I 
have been at the trouble of transcribing the whole 
of this passage, in order to furnish the reader who 
may not have seen the Professor's pamphlet, with 
a specimen of his general mode of argumentation, 
as well as the character of his theological creed. 
A great proportion of his pages is filled with similar 
interrogatories, suppositious cases, and arbitrary 
conclusions ; yet this is a small matter compared 
with the sentiments occasionally developed in the 
course of the work. We have already seen what 
are his views on the article of "justification/* and 

* Remarks, pp. 95, 96. 



236 

heard his opinion respecting the proper accepta- 
tion of the word " saints :" he here lets us into his 
ideas relative to the meaning* of another of those 
New Testament phrases which have ever been 
regarded as principal pillars in the Christian 
edifice. According to the above induction to be 
in Christ, to be in the faith of Christ, to be of his 
Church or people, and to profess faith in him, are 
one and the same thing. And what is the result 
of this identification of terms ? Why, nothing less 
than this, that to be a genuine Christian, it is only- 
necessary to ie profess faith" in Christ. According 
to the doctrine of Scripture, however, and the 
confessions of all the Reformed Churches, no per- 
son is warranted to consider himself to be one of 
those who are in Christ Jesus, except he be a 
new creature ; old things having passed away, and 
all things having become new. All who are in 
him are freed from condemnation, and give evi- 
dence of a change of state, by walking, not ac- 
cording to the flesh but according to the spirit. 
2 Cor. v. 17. Rom. viii. 1. But can this be af- 
firmed of all who prof ess faith in Christ, and that 
they are of his Church or people ? Again, when 
the same Apostle is enumerating the glorious and 
peculiar privileges of real Christians, he writes, 
" And of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God 
is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and 
sanctification, and redemption ;" 1 Cor. i. 30. 



237 

And, when giving an account of his own expe- 
rience, he states it to be his highest ambition and 
aim to " win Christ, and be found in him, not 
having," says he, " mine own righteousness which 
is of the law, but that which is through the faith 
of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
faith." Phil. iii. 9. To be in Christ, therefore, is 
to be in that state of happy and secure union with 
him, in virtue of which we become interested in 
his merits, are reconciled to God, and enjoy a title 
to all the blessings of redemption, as wrought out 
by, and freely communicated unto us through him. 
But this is obviously something essentially different 
from a mere profession of the Christian faith ; 
and we cannot, in my opinion, entertain a more 
destructive error than to imagine that, because 
we profess to believe in Christ, and are numbered 
with his Church or people, we are, therefore, 
really in him, in the New Testament sense of the 
phrase. Nor can it be said with accuracy, that 
to be in the faith of Christ, and to be in Christ are 
identically the same. Faith is the instrument by 
which the soul is united to the Redeemer ; not 
the state of union itself; and the profession of this 
faith, although necessary to constitute us mem- 
bers of Christ's visible Church, in the eye of man, 
is of itself altogether insufficient to procure for us 
admission into the favour and presence of God. 
Must we not, therefore, consider the interpreta- 



238 

tion given of the term by Professor Lee, as another 
instance of what Dr. Jebb so emphatically and 
justly calls, " a fatal habit of explaining away the 
most pregnant truths of Christianity *?" While the 
critic smiles at the assertion that " a better trans- 
lation cannot be given" of the words ytyovaaev kv 
XpiGTtj), than " they believed in Christ" the Chris- 
tian will mourn at the perversion of Divine truth 
exhibited in the above instance, and be more than 
ever convinced of the necessity of subjecting to 
strict scrutiny the means employed for communi- 
cating that truth to our fellow-men. 

Another palpable instance of the laxity of Pro- 
fessor Lee's principles of Biblical criticism, is dis- 
covered by the manner in which he treats the im- 
portant omission, Rev. xix. 9. instead of the 
words, Qvtoi ot Xoyot aXnSivoi uGi rov Gfou, " These 
are the true sayings of God," the Turkish simply 
reads, j<&>~ <s})y» viX^H! " the words of God are 
true;" an assertion, it was observed in the Ap- 
peal f, to which no Mohammedan will refuse his 
consent, it being in daily use in reference to the 
Koran. The reader would naturally have sup- 
posed, that after the words in the Remarks J, 
" the passage is certainly defective" the Professor 

* Sacred Literature, p. 5 1 . 
f Page 38. 
t Page 98. 



239 

must have added, "and ought immediately to be 
corrected;" but instead of this, we are favoured 
with the greater part of two pages of reasoning 
upon the subject, the general purport of which is, 
that " the omission does by no means injure the 
truth contained in the proposition, view it in what 
light you will ;" and, accordingly, the whole cri- 
tique concludes with a strong recommendation to 
insert the omitted pronoun in a future edition! 

The rendering Rev. xx. 12: "And the dead 
were judged according to the things written in 
the book, or that book, (cjU'Xf J^l ol kitabda)," is also 
defended by Professor Lee, and is, it seems, to 
remain unaltered. Conceding for a moment the 
point to him, that the Mohammedan reader will 
not naturally think of the Kiidb, or private book, 
belonging to every individual, which, according to 
Islamic ideas, is to be put into the right hand of 
the faithful, and into the left hand, or behind the 
shoulders of the infidels, it still remains a fair 
subject of debate, whether it be "sufficiently 
clear, that no Christian doctrine has suffered by 
this translation?" The Professor maintains the 
affirmative*; but, I believe, it will be found to be 
no part of Christian doctrine, that the dead in 
general " will be judged according to the things 
written in the book of life (so he explains the 
passage) according to their works ;" for the un- 

f Remarks, p. 101. 



240 

godly have no works to be registered in ".that 
book" and their being cast into the lake of fire 
is assigned to this very circumstance, that they 
are not written in it, ver. 15. The doctrine ge- 
nerally taught among Christians is not, that the 
judgment will proceed upon the evidence of the 
book, but upon that of the books; and these are 
commonly explained, as signifying the light of 
nature, the Mosaic law, the Gospel revelation, 
and the register of conscience. To these is super- 
added, exclusively with respect to the righteous, 
"another book, which is the book of life," con- 
taining the evidences of their being spiritually 
alive through Jesus Christ their living Head, ac- 
cording to which they shall be adjudged to life 
everlasting. The simple change, therefore, of the 
plural into the singular number by Ali Bey, com- 
pletely sets aside the whole of this Scriptural 
mode of representing the solemn transactions of 
that tremendous and decisive day. 

But an attempt is also made to support the 
objectionable rendering on critical grounds ; and 
I am charged with culpability for not having 
adverted to the circumstance, that the Arabic 
version of Erpenius, and the Ethiopic, exhibit 
the same reading with Ali Bey, and that the 
word in question is, according to Griesbach, 
entirely omitted in the Armenian*. Had any 

* Remarks, p. 100. 



241 

Greek MSS. favoured this reading, or did they 
furnish us with a diversity of reading, some au- 
thority might reasonably be allowed to the testi- 
mony of these versions in the present instance: 
but in the total absence of all proof, that any 
Greek manuscript ever read ev tw |3i€Aew, or omitted 
kv roiq |3i€Xiotc, the particular rendering of a couple 
of versions, is unworthy of any regard. Yet, 
upon the slender ground furnished by this cir- 
cumstance, Professor Lee conceives himself en- 
titled to ask : " Does it not now become proba- 
ble, that the manuscripts have presented some 
variety here? and that the Arabic, Ethiopic, and 
Turkish translators, all read it in the singular in 
their copies, and not in the plural ?" Assuredly, 
if we were to assume it as probable, that in cer- 
tain specific passages, the Greek MSS. read 
differently from what they now universally do, 
merely because varieties are found in different 
versions, it would produce a wonderful augmen- 
tation to our collections of Varies Lectiones. 
Whether the task will be accomplished by some 
future scholar, remains to be seen ; but I believe 
it would add but little after all to our means of 
ascertaining the primitive state of the original 
text. But it is also taken for granted in the 
Remarks, that the translator of Erpenius' Arabic,; 
and Ali Bey, made their versions from , Greek 
manuscripts. That the former, as far as the Book 



242 

of Revelation is concerned, was not done from the 
Greek original at all, but from the Coptic, has 
been rendered highly probable by the examina- 
tion instituted by Christ Bened. Michaelis, in 
the 29th sect, of his Tractatio Critica de Var. 
Lect. N. T. p. 39; and if Professor Lee can 
make it appear, what I believe, however, he 
will have some difficulty in doing, that Ali Bey 
made his Turkish version from some manuscript 
Greek copy, then, certainly, in the belief of his 
assurance, that it is " in every respect faithful 
to the original" I should be one of the first to call 
for an edition of it in its grossest state, not with 
a view to its distribution among the Turks, but 
merely to serve as a literary curiosity, furnishing 
us, as in that case it must, with a representation 
of the most remarkable Greek manuscript ever 
known to be in existence. With regard to what 
he is pleased to call 4l my favourite Ethiopic," I 
believe we must abide by the following decision 
of Michaelis*, that " as we have no edition of 
this version, that is the result of a careful colla- 
tion of various manuscripts, we must never suspect 
the authenticity of a word in the Greek text, be- 
cause it is wanting in the Ethiopic." 

The next passage demanding reconsideration, 
is Rev. vii. 10. which Ali Bey thus exhibits in 
his version: .jJjo;^ ^d ^US afii JijJ cd^J j^al». 

* Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II. Part i. p. 96. 



243 

** Our salvation is from the Supreme God and 
from the Lamb." To this rendering it was ob- 
jected, that it represents the words of the original 
as containing a simple declaration, that our salva- 
tion is derived from God and the Lamb, instead 
of that ascription of praise to the Lamb, which is 
justly considered by Drs. Wardlaw and Smith as 
constituting an act of religious adoration, of which 
the Lamb is the object equally with the Father, 
in as much as they are in essence and deity 
one*. In this point of view, the translation is 
again chargeable with annihilating, as far as it 
goes, one of the proofs of our Lord's divinity. 
Professor Lee, indeed, views the passage differ- 
ently; for he says, p. 113. "The redeemed ap- 
pear here to be praising God for that salvation 
which they have derived solely from him and 
from the Lamb. Now, whether this be termed 
an ascription of praise, or a declaration of that 
which amounts to the same thing, seems to be but 
of little moment" And again, p. 114. " Instead 
of derogating here in any respect from the glory 
of God he (Ali Bey) has so rendered this passage 
as fully to ascribe it to him." It will be per- 
ceived, that the adoration of Christ, under the 
character of the " Lamb," is here completely ex- 
cluded. And will it seriously be maintained by any 
believer in his divinity, that this is of little moment? 

* Scripture Testimony to the Messiah. Book IV. Chap. ii. 7. 

R2 



244 

I had asserted*, that I was acquainted with 
no version except the one under review, that 
rendered the words tw Ocw k. r. X. "from God and 
from the Lamb." To this it is replied, that "in 
all the Arabic versions, the construction here 
found may be rendered, by the genitive case, and 
if Griesbach may be relied on, the Slavonic, and 
even some Greek manuscripts read tov Qeov " of 
God." It certainly was prudent, to say the least, 
in the Professor, to reduce the matter to a bare 
possibility in the former of these cases; for it 
would be doing injustice to his official character 
to suppose, that if he had translated the Arabic 
words, totally irrespective of controversy, he 
would not have taken the prepositive Lam in its 
usual sense as denoting the dative case. How, 
indeed, could the passage have been otherwise 
V given in Arabic, to express more directly the 
object and not the cause or possessor of a thing? 
With respect to the Slavonic, we may remark, it 
is only the MSS. 3. 4. 5. and the two first printed 
editions, that exhibit a reading corresponding to 
tov Geov : that of the present text expresses rw Of w, 
as do all the Greek MSS. except the Alexandrine 
copy, and it is the reading of all the printed 
editions of the Greek Testament. Where then 
are the other Greek MSS. in which Professor Lee 
has discovered the reading tov Owv ? 

* Appeal, p. 42. 



245 

It is unnecessary to go over the commentators 
alleged by my antagonist. Some of them are 
directly against him, and support the view above 
given of the passage. Take, for instance, his first 

quotation. " Grotius Says, r? (Tbrrypia rw Ocw, &c. 

Est metonymia : nam salutem vocat gratias oh ac- 
ceptam salutem; sicut Kparog supra 1. 6. et 5. 13. 
est agnitio potenticE," &c. Could any authority have 
been brought forward more directly corroborative 
of my position, and condemnatory of the render- 
ing of Ali Bey ? 

One observation more shall close my remarks 
on this passage. Professor Lee maintains, p. 114. 
that if the Turkish translator had servilely imi- 
tated the original here, "he would have infringed 
on the just principles of criticism, and made his 
translation scarcely intelligible^, to an Oriental 
reader." How then, we may ask, did this same 
Turkish translator come to render Rev. v. 13. 

,& lSj& *>W eJ ^/ " To Him that sitteth upon 
the throne, and to the Lamb." Will his de- 
fendant say, that he was here guilty of an in- 
fringement of the just principles of criticism ? or, 
that this passage will be scarcely intelligible to 
an Oriental reader ? 

But to proceed. Ali Bey renders Luke ix. 23. 
" Let him take his cross (*JU^I umuzine) on his 
shoulder, and follow me." Now, would it be sup- 



246 

posed, that any person could seriously undertake 
the defence of this translation ? Yet upon it also 
Professor Lee expatiates to the length of a page 
and a half, and concludes, by observing: " Ali 
Bey has done nothing more than simply supply 
the ellipse, which the reader must supply in his 
own mind, even in consulting the original*." 
How very convenient a thing the ellipse is we 
shall see in the following chapter ; but I would 
here simply put the question : Reader, have you 
ever been accustomed to supply the word 
shoulder, when you read of taking up the 
cross ? And why, it may farther be asked, did Ali 
Bey not supply it in the parallel passages, Matth. 
x. 38. xvi. 24. Mark viii. 34. x. 21. ? Was it 
because uniformity did not enter into his prin- 
ciple of interpretation? Or did he anticipate, 
that in these instances the reader would perform, 
" in his own mind," what he omitted to do in the 
version? But, perhaps, the Professor will say, 
that these questions are " trifling and puerile," as 
he does of my remark respecting the carnality of 
Ali's translation. 

Another instance in which the erroneous ren- 
derings of the Turkish version are vindicated, is 
that in which al ypa<pat the Scriptures, without 
restriction or limitation, Acts xvii. 2. are changed 

* Remarks, p. 123. 



247 

into UL>\jf Tewrat, the Law or Pentateuch. On 
this Professor Lee remarks, that Tewret means 
the Bible among the Turks, and considers the 
fact to be sufficiently proved by the authority of 
Meninsky. But he should have given that au- 
thority in full, which the reader, on turning to 
the Lexicon, will find to stand thus : " *%S et tsjtaS 
Tewrat. Lex Mosaica, Biblia, genesis." From 
this it is evident, that Bible is not its primary, 
nor, we may add, is it its customary meaning 
among the Turks, any more than it is the common 
signification of the Hebrew min Tbrah in the 
Old, or the Greek word vofioq in the New Testa- 
ment. The circumstance, that both words are 
sometimes used in a general sense for all the 
Books of the Old Testament, is of no weight at 
all in the argument ; it would only then have been 
valid if I had objected to Ali Bey's use of the 
word <£J\j£ Tewrat, John x, 34. or any similar 
passage where the original has vofxog in this sense. 
But even the partial use of the word in the sense 
of Bible among the Turks, will not justify its 
adoption in this passage, unless Professor Lee 
be prepared to shew, that it would have been 
warrantable in our translator to employ ,^\ Zebur, 

a word which, although among Mohammedans it 
customarily signifies " The Psalms" yet is also 
used in a general sense for the whole of the 

10 



248 

Sacred Volume*. The question before us is 
simply this : Whether Ali Bey had a right to 
employ, in this particular instance, a word, which, 
although it might be used in its more compre- 
hensive sense in other parts of the New Testa- 
ment, does not give, in the present case, an exact 
representation of the original ? Is it asked, how 
could Ali Bey have otherwise translated the words 
al ypacj>ai ? I answer : By the word^LUi' Kitabler, 
just as he has done Matth. xxvi. 54. Luke xxiv. 
32. John v. 39. and elsewhere. 

An objection was also made to the substitution 
of the phrase " divine books" for al ypa<j>ai, Acts 
xviii. 28. on the ground that it is purely Moham- 
medan. Not only does it not occur in the passage 
just referred to, but it is a phrase altogether un- 
known in Scripture ; and this I do think ought to 
have some weight with my opponent, who con- 
stantly insists on Scripture usage as a sufficient 
warrant for any particular mode in which any 
particular passage may happen to be rendered. 
It was shewn in the Appeal f, that the phrase in 
question is that under which Mohammedans com- 
prise all the books which they believe to have 
been sent down from heaven, and of these, the 

* " Vox Arabica .y J] accipitur generatim pro omnibus sacris 
libris" Marraccii Refut. in Sur. xxi. Alcor. Not. cv. 
f P. 45, 



249 

first place is always allotted to the Koran, which 
they believe to have superseded all the rest. 
Until such time as the Professor shall have 
proved the necessity of adopting such phraseo- 
logy into translations of the Christian Scriptures, 
his remarks relative to the ideas which Moham- 
medans may attach to words actually occuring in 
these Scriptures, may be dismissed as altogether 
irrelevant to the subject. 

A few words will be sufficient to dispossess the 
Tatars of Colossians iii. 1 1 . which place I believe 
they never occupied till they were introduced 
into it by Ali Bey about the year 1666. The 
Professor thinks, indeed, that they may be tole- 
rated, because Schleusner says: " Scythia autem 
latissima olim erat regio, magnam Europae Asiae- 
que partem, hodiernam nimirum Tartariam cum 
regionibus quibusdam finitimis complectens. A 
Scythian, therefore, of ancient times, is supposed 
to have been of the same nation as a Tartar or 
Tatar of the present*." If he will turn to the 
Hermes Scythicus of Dr. Jamieson, or Dr. 
Murray's History of the European Languages, 
he may find reason to adopt a very different 
opinion on this subject ; but, not to insist on this: 
Does not also Schleusner say, under the word 
EAaprrjc : " Olim universa Persia Elam vocabi- 
tur." And does he not moreover say, under 

* Remarks, p. 131, 



250 

MijSoe, " Media autem est provincia Asiss — hodie 
Schirvan vulgo appellator;" Ua^vXia Paraphilia, 
" Hodie vocoXur Menteseli;'" and of Mesopotamia : 
"Metropolis ejus fuit Amida, quae hodie Amed 
dicitur, et regio ipsa Diarbecha vocatur ?" Would 
it, therefore, be proper to render Acts ii. 9, 10. 
thus : Parthians and Shirvanese and Persians, and 
those who dwell in Diarbekir, &c. ? Or, shall we 
justify Saadias for introducing the Franks and 
Sclavonians into the Arabic version of the 10th 
chapter of Genesis 1 

But it is urged *, that if Ali Bey " had intro- 
duced the word Scythian into his translation, it is 
probable, that no Turk or Tatar, now in existence, 
would have understood him. The translation is, 
therefore, in this place, both correct and intelligi- 
ble, neither of which would have been the case, 
had the Translator adopted Dr. Henderson's rules 
of Biblical interpretation." The impartial reader 
will, I doubt not, be disposed to give what are 
here called my rules of Biblical interpretation, 
a retrospective influence of no very limited extent ; 
for they have, in fact, been acted upon by the best 
translators in every age. With respect to the in- 
telligibility of the word Scythian, I leave it to the 
hundreds of thousands, or, to speak more correctly, 
the millions now in existence, into whose lan- 
guages this word has been introduced through the 

* Remarks, p. 132. 



251 

medium of Biblical translations, to say, whether 
they do not understand it just as well as many 
other ethnical names which occur in Scripture: 
its correctness will not likely be called in question 
by any but the Author of the Remarks. 

The next passage which claims our attention is 
James v. 4. where the phrase Kvpiog 2aj3ao>0, 
" Lord of Sabaoth," is rendered by the Koranic 
form ^jJ^JWl tl^ " Lord of the worlds;' by which 
latter word, the Mohammedans, according to 
Marracci, understand the three species of rational 
creatures, in which they believe, angels, genii, and 
men. That the phrase itself was originally bor- 
rowed by Mohammed from the Jews, I have no 
doubt ; O'toViyn 2") Rab-ha-olamim occurring fre- 
quently in their ancient prayers ; but still, this is 
not exactly equivalent to the original Hebrew 
phrase, JDtflS miT Jehovah Tzebaoth, part of which 
is retained in this passage in the Greek. The 
phrase is allowed on all hands to be figurative, 
and the latter word is derived from the verb Nltt 
tzaba, to go out to war, to assemble in military 
array. The first time the substantive occurs is in 
Gen. ii. 1. " Thus the heavens and the earth were 
finished fDNl^ ^D1 vecol Tzebdam) and all their 
host," where it is evidently used figuratively ; and 
this figurative sense it retains, when used in the 
plural number, of the angels, stars, &c. Now 
I cannot discover any good reason, why this 



252 

translated sense should not be admissable in the 
Turkish as well as in any other language. Profes- 
sor Lee affects to ridicule the use of the word 
Ljy>- cheri, which I had proposed, because it hap- 
pens, when combined with ^Jo leni, to signify a 

Janisary; but he has himself given exercitus as 
one of the meanings affixed to it by Meninsky 
(and he is not ashamed to be found quoting Me- 
ninsky any more than the Author of the Appeal) ; 
and as Ali Bey has used a similar word, y^*c 
esker, Gen. ii. 1. it may reasonably be allowed to 
make use either of the one or the other in trans- 
lating the phrase under consideration. 

That the Arabic and Syriac translators have 
rendered alwvag, Heb. i. 2. by words signifying 
worlds, is not to the point; their versions being 
made for the use of Christians, and not for Mo- 
hammedans; but the reference to the Malay of 
this passage, and that under review, is an impo- 
sition on the reader, the word in the Malay ver- 
sion of both passages being As. alam, " world," 
and not ^^ alamin, worlds, under which plural 
form alone it is objectionable. 

But I hesitate not to declare, that my principal 
objection lay against the introduction of the 
Eastern genii into our Scriptures, of which, how- 
ever, this is only one, and that an indirect in- 
stance, out of the many producible from the pages 



253 

of Ali Bey. Whoever wishes to form a complete 
idea of the opinions prevalent in the East, respect- 
ing these imaginary beings, is referred to D'Her- 
belot's Bibliotheque Orientale, Article Gian, and 
Richardson's Dissertation on the Languages, Lite- 
rature, and Manners of the Eastern Nations, 
pp. 165 — 175. I shall only quote here the defini- 
tion given of the word ~ ^ Ginn, by two Oriental 
writers, from which it will be seen, how incongru- 
ous it is to employ any such word in a translation 
of the New Testament. The first is Al Jannabi, who 
writes, ^L ^ j^ ^j*Jb* ^ uM^ *^W ^ u^- 

d$3 uV J* u«5 J^ *f *&& iaT°J ^^ & ^ 

jfi y^ Creavit Deus Angelos et Genios ex eodem 
genere, ex ipsis qui mundus (vel sanctus est) An- 
gelus dicitur, qui malignus Diabolus, qui medii 
stat as Genius, The other writer, Al Demiri, de- 
scribes them thus : Jl£*Jtf! ^U s^li' <xjuI^j> *U^I ^1 

<&UJI JUciil ^J.c Zj&Sj *i$j Jj&c L^J aalisr* Jj^Jj 

Genii (inquit) sunt corpora aerea, quae varias in- 
duere formas pro libitu possunt, ratione, intellectu 
et ardua quselibet praestandi potentia praedita *. 

I shall conclude my review of the false ren- 
derings in Ali Bey's version, and Professor Lee's 
defence of them, by adverting to 1 John ii. 7. 
where the word cvroXrj, commandment, injunction, 

* Pococki Porta Mosis. 



254 

is translated, by the Arabic word j^c iht, fee- 
dus, testamentum, promissum, pactum. That this 
word is sometimes used in the sense of precept, was 
granted in the Appeal * ; but it was affirmed, that 
according to its usage by AH Bey, it must be 
taken in the sense of Covenant, and I instanced the 
title of the book on which my criticisms were 
made ! 4*3^-1 'j^l i^JjS " The Book of the New 
Covenant/ 9 It is, in fact, the word in established 
use to express the Greek SiaO^. How then can 
it, with any propriety, be introduced into this 
passage, where there is not the most remote re- 
ference to any federal transaction? If Professor 
Lee will only take the trouble to compare the 
passages of the New Testament in which the two 
words cvroXi?, commandment, and SiaOnicri, covenant, 
occur, he will find that he might have spared his 
suppositious query relative to the possibility of a 
difference between them f. 

* P. 4*6. f Remarks, p. 136. 



CHAPTER X. 

Omissions and Additions in the Version of Ali Bey, Professor 
Lees dextrous Use of the Ellipse. His References to Greek 
MSS. inaccurate or entirely unfounded. Certain Words 
and Phrases of Scripture he deems unimportant. Confounds 
the Province of the Lexicographer and the Commentator 
with that of the Translator. His Vindication of the Com- 
binations, " Sacred Will" " Sacred Name" " Precious 
Blood" fyc. examined. 

It now only remains to examine the strictures 
contained in the Vlth and VHth chapters of Pro- 
fessor Lee's Remarks, which may be done with 
greater brevity than was found to be necessary in 
going through the preceding divisions of his work. 
These strictures relate exclusively to the Omis- 
sions and Additions specified in the Appeal, in 
noting down which, I merely took such as struck 
me in the course of my first perusal of the three 
books which formed the basis of the Remarks I 
submitted to the Committee of the Bible Society. 
Since that time, numerous faults of a similar 
stamp, many of them much more aggravated in 
their nature, have been detected ; but, consider- 
ing the developments which had been made, 
relative to the other delinquencies of the version, 



256 

fully adequate to require the suppression of the 
edition containing them, it was deemed unneces- 
sary, at the time I drew up the Appeal, to swell 
the list by an enumeration of them. 

The first three instances of omission are more 
immediately of a critical nature. That occurring 
Matt. viii. 5. is certainly so far obviated by a re- 
ference to Griesbach ; but the appeal made to that 
critic, in the other two cases, is certainly the 
strangest that ever was exhibited, subsequent to 
the period of his being constituted an umpire in 
regard to the various readings of the Greek New 
Testament. It was shewn * that the words, ra ira- 
pa7rTh)fxaTaviuLwvy "your trespasses," Matt. vi. 15. had 
been omitted by Ali Bey. Now as these words form 
an acknowledged and integral part of the Greek 
original, every other person must have imagined, 
that nothing was to be done in this case, but 
simply to acknowledge that there was such an 
omission, and, agreeably to the plan adopted by 
the Committee, to direct that the page should be 
cancelled and reprinted, or that, at least, the 
words should be supplied in the table of errata. 
But no such course is pursued. Professor Lee, 
on the contrary, contends, that " in this omission 
Ali Bey has done nothing contrary to the laws of 
Biblical interpretation, or to the practice of for- 

* Appeal, p. 44. 



257 

¥wer translators." Nay, he even asserts, that " in 
his opinion the translator has preserved both the 
sense and spirit of the original, much better than he 
would have done, if he had given a translation of the 
words in question *," Of this assertion I shall not 
attempt any refutation ; but I cannot help express- 
ing my apprehensions, that dreadful havock will 
be made of the word of God, if a principle of such 
boundless licence were once conceded to transla- 
tors or editors of the Sacred Text. But what are 
" the laws of Biblical interpretation" which au- 
thorize so bold a liberty on the part of a translator ? 
" The fact is, the omission complained of, every 
reader will supply in his own mind, by the ellipse f!" 
That there exists such a figure of syntax as the 
ellipse, is what I had some knowledge of before 
perusing the Remarks ; but I certainly never 
imagined that it was possessed of contrary powers, 
now operating on what is contained in the text 
of an author, and now upon what he has omitted. 
According to the light in which Professor Lee 
views it, whenever a translator (and why not an 
editor ?) finds what he supposes is an ellipsis, he 
is at liberty to insert the word or words in his 
version, although the language of the version may 
bear the ellipse as well as the original ; see pp. 
123. 145. 147, 148 : and if, on the other hand, he 

* Remarks, p, 140. t Ibid. 

s 



258 

find that he can render his version elliptical by 
retrenching certain words or ideas which are fully 
expressed in the original text, he is perfectly 
warranted so to do ; " every reader will supply 
the omission in his own mind, by the ellipse;" 
p. 140. Guardians of the oracles of God ! Weigh 
this principle well, and view it in all its bearings, 
before you give it your sanction. 

The other reason produced by the Professor in 
justification of the omission is, I venture to say, 
the most ridiculous and absurd that ever was ad- 
vanced in the field of critical research. It is 
neither more nor less than this, " the practice of 
former copyists and translators" in also omitting 
some words, though not the words in question ! 
Because " some of the manuscripts, and several 
of the Oriental versions omit the preceding ra wa~ 
pcnrTtofiaTa avTwv" their trespasses, therefore, a 
translator may omit, if he pleases, the words to. 
TrapaTTTWfiaTa vfxtov, your trespasses, in the latter 
clause of the verse ! What is there to be found in 
the pages of John Bellamy to be compared to 
this ? 

The next omission, the vindication of which is 
attempted, is that of the words fura rov naTpog pov, 
" with my Father," Rev. iii. 21. "the effect of 
which/' I remarked *, " is to leave the Moham- 

* Appeal, p. 47. 



259 

medan in the dark as to the throne on which the 
Faithful and True Witness declares he was seated 
after his victory." Professor Lee does not call 
this an ellipse* but in his mind it amounts to the 
same thing ; for he takes " it for granted, that 
every considerate reader (and such no doubt 
abound among the Turks) will come to the same 
conclusion with himself, namely, that a very cur- 
sory perusal of the chapter, will shew the reader, 
whether he be Turk or Englishman, that the word 
God is the antecedent *." It may, on the contrary, 
be affirmed with confidence, that few readers will 
think of going back not fewer than six verses to 
find the supposed antecedent ; and that they will 
conclude from the words, " To him that over- 
cometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, 
even as I overcame, and am set down with him 
on his throne," that some interchange of thrones 
is meant, though they must be sensible that no 
very distinct idea is conveyed by the passage. 

The conclusion, however, at which the Profes- 
sor arrived by this expedient, does not, after all, 
appear to have proved very satisfactory to his 
own mind, whatever he may have anticipated 
respecting its weight with others ; and he accord- 
ingly proceeds to justify the omission on critical 
grounds. Let us next " enquire," says he, i( whe- 

* Remarks, p, 142,. 
s 2 



260 

ther Ali Bey had any authority or not for the 
omission with which he is here charged. If the 
reader will turn to the passage in Griesbach's 
Greek Testament, he will see, that these words 
are not found in several valuable Greek Manuscripts; 
that the Editio Princeps of the Greek Testament, as 
well as that of Arethas, omits them ; and that some 
others read the passage differently. Now can Dr. 
Henderson suppose that all this has been done in 
order * to leave the Mohammedans in the dark ? 
Would it not be more just to suppose, that Ali 
Bey followed one or other of these copies -\!" 
Doubtless, all this sounds well, and is very much 
calculated to deceive the unwary ; though, I 
believe, I shall not be singular in the opinion, that 
even the authorities here adduced are inadequate 
to support so important an omission, or, indeed, 
any omission, in opposition to the great majority 
of the best manuscripts and editions, all of which 
exhibit the reading of the Textus Receptus, and 
our own authorized version. Still, it will be 
granted, they were entitled to some degree of con- 
sideration. But instead of giving ourselves fur- 
ther trouble about the question, Whether Ali Bey 
had any authority or not for the omission ? Let us 
propose another: What authority had Professor 
Lee for making the above assertions ? I have no 

* I only said the effect was that here described, 
f Remarks, p. 143. 






261 

doubt that many of his readers who are in posses- 
sion of Griesbach, have not been at the pains to 
follow the advice so gravely given them, to turn 
to the passage, but have taken the authority of 
the great critic simply on the Professor's word ; 
while such as have no access to any edition of 
Griesbach's Testament, have been obliged, nolens 
volens, to give him credit for the accuracy of 
his quotations. But how then, it will be asked, 
does the passage really stand in Griesbach ? Can 
Professor Lee have totally misrepresented him, 
and made him say, what he neither has said, nor 
ever intended to say ? The text and note of the 
London Edition of 1818, are as follow: 

Kcu £KaOiaa h fxtTa rov irarpoQ fxov kv t<£ Opovoj avrov. 

h 'Ev t£ Qpovf rov TrarpoQ fiov Arm. Moyses in Epist. ad 
Cypf . kv raj Qpovui avrov == lips. 6, 

Nothing, as far as my perception goes, can be 
deduced from this, more than the simple circum- 
stances, which do not at all affect the words in 
question, that the Armenian version, according to 
Moses, in his Epistle to Cyprian, instead of the 
words, " with my Father on his throne," reads, 
" on the throne of my Father;'' and that, in a 
Latin manuscript preserved at Leipsic, the words, 
" in his throne," are omitted, and the passage 
reads only, " and am seated with my Father." 
Where then are the several valuable Greek Manu- 
scripts, and the Editio Princeps of the Greek Testa- 



262 

ment, and that of Arethas, and the others that omit 
the words fxzra rov Trarpog (xov, " with my Father ?" 
Griesbaeh is entirely silent on the subject of these 
authorities, which is the more remarkable, as he 
happens to refer to them in the following note, 
which relates, however, not to this verse, but to 
a various reading in the first verse of the fourth 
chapter of the Apocalypse. Perhaps the reader 
will pardon my now adopting the concluding sen- 
tence of the Remarks on this passage, only sub- 
stituting the Professor's name for my own. " Pro- 
fessor Lee, however, seems to disdain making 
inquiry on any part of this subject, which may 
seem to militate against his feelings ; and, what 
is more strange, he is careless as to his assertions, 
should his criticisms be true in other respects *." 
From the reasoning in the Remarks, pp. 141, 
142. it will be seen, that in the Professor's esti- 
mation, it is " of no importance," or "of little 
importance," whether the reading of certain pas- 
sages of the New Testament be " God," or " my 
God;" or, indeed, whether "God" be entirely 
omitted; as he conceives that the ingenuity of 
the reader, the bearing of the context, and the 
knowledge of Mohammedans, will furnish a suffi- 
cient safeguard against any misrepresentation of 
the passages in which the omission occurs. But 

* Remarks, p. 143. 



263 

lest I should be suspected of distorting his words, 
I shall here allow him to speak for himself: " The 
next omission is in John i. 52. of the words row 
Ocou ' of God ;' but here the word AxU Malaklar, 

Angels, necessarily includes of God, the Moham- 
medans knowing of no angels, but the angels of 
God ; the insertion of the words would be unnecessary 
in the translation ; the omission is, therefore, of no 
importance* '." The latter part of this extract re- 
quires no comment. On the former I may be 
permitted to observe, that whatever may be the 
ideas of a Mohammedan previous to his reading 
the New Testament, he will be taught by it, that 
there exist angels, who are not " angels of God," 
but " angels of the devil" See Matt. xxv. 4L 
Rev. xii. 7. 9. Is it not of importance, that this 
distinction should be known to Mohammedans as 
well as to Christians ? 

With respect to the reading " God" instead of 
" my God," I believe few besides Ali Bey and 
Professor Lee would deem the difference unim- 
portant. " Faith/' says an eminent Scotch divine, 
" will not quit its my's, though all the world 
should say against it. The marrow of the Gospel, 
as Luther observes, is in these words, my and our; 
he bids us read these with great emphasis. Says 
another, take away property, and you take away 

* Remarks, p. 141. 



264 

God, take away Christ. It is the common dialect 
of faith in Scripture, to vent itself in words of 
appropriation; it has a peculiar pleasure and 
satisfaction in these words, my and our, and rolls 
them in its mouth like a sweet morsel. See how 
sweetly David sings upon the string. Ps. xviii. 
1, 2. No less than eight times in a breath doth 
he repeat his appropriating my; yea, so tenacious 
is faith in this matter, that it will maintain its my's 
in the face of a hiding and frowning God. Ps. 
xxii. 1. My God, my God, why hast thou for- 
saken me*?" Although in some points of view I 
may not agree with this author on the subject of 
appropriation, yet I deem it of no less importance 
than he did, and should consider it no ordinary 
act of sacrilege to erase one of its possessive 
pronouns from the Covenant of God. To the 
above extract, I shall only beg to add one from 
Dr. Jebb, when expatiating on that most in- 
teresting instance of cognate parallelism, Isaiah 
lv. 6, 7. He concludes his remarks thus : " In 
the last line, the appropriative and encouraging 
title our God, is substituted for the awful name 
of Jehovah|." 

Professor Lee remarks on the addition to the 
words of the Apostle, Rom. iii. 21. "Being 
witnessed by the law and the books of the pro- 

* The Rev. E, Erskine in Brown's Gospel Truth, pp. 269, 270. 
f Sacred Literature, p. 38. 



265 

phets, that by the law he must mean the written 
law, and by the prophets their written testimony. 
As it would be absurd to appeal to that of which 
no one had any knowledge, AH Bey has, there- 
fore, very properly supplied the ellipse of the 
original *." The reader will at once perceive, 
that this rule, in order to be valid, ought to have 
been extended to the law also, and that AH 
should have written the book of the law, as well 
as the books of the prophets ; nor can it escape his 
notice, that if the conclusion here drawn be 
right, then are not only our own translators, but 
translators in general (I might have said, univer- 
sally) chargeable with a culpable omission in not 
having supplied the word, and thereby done what 
was " very proper" to be done. Nor will Ali 
Bey himself escape the general censure ; for 
though it suited his whim, to insert the word 
books before " the prophets" in this particular in- 
stance, he either forgot, or did not consider it 
necessary, to supply any such ellipse, Matt. v. 
17. vii. 13. xxii. 40. Luke xvi. 29. But the fact 
is, whatever ideas the Professor may entertain of 
its impropriety, the sacred penmen, in this in* 
stance, only make use of a metonymy common in 
all languages, by which the name or official cha- 
racter of an author is substituted for his writings. 

* Remarks, p. 145. 



266 

By the same figure Jacob is put for the Jewish 
people, because they were his descendants. Rom. 
xi. 26. which passage, however, Ali Bey renders, 
" And shall turn away ungodliness from the sons of 
Jacob;" thereby destroying the figure which he 
might have preserved in this veTse equally well 
as in the 2nd and 7th verses of this same chapter, 
and in many other passages where he designates 
a people by the name of their progenitor. Yet, 
here again the Professor vindicates Ali, and stig- 
matizes my remark as absurd*! 

In giving the singular for the plural number in 
the words ^^w.y and c^UaLj Rom. x. 5. and xiv. 
14. I was certainly guilty of an oversight; but 
it does not in the least affect the question in de- 
bate, excepting, perhaps, that in the former of 
these instances it was accompanied by a partial 
representation of the offence committed by Ali 
Bey, which I thank Professor Lee for exhibiting 
in its full enormity. The original is very pro- 
perly rendered in our common version : " For 
Moses describeth the righteousness which is of 
the law. That the man which doeth these things 
(abra) shall live by them." The Turkish version, 
on the other hand, reads thus : " For Moses 
writeth thus respecting the righteousness obtain- 
able from the law, namely, the man who per- 

* Remarks, p. 147. 



267 

formeth the precepts of the law, shall live by them." 
Whether, as my opponent asserts, " Ali Bey has 
in this instance done nothing more than it was 
his duty to do," let the reader give verdict : only 
recollecting, that if he acquits him, he will, by 
that act, condemn every good translator, and fail 
after all in bringing Ali in innocent, as numerous 
instances may be 'produced from his translation, 
in which he has translated the pronoun aura 
simply by Jj^ bunlar, or .Ui ^ bu shellar, " these 
things" without " fully expressing the sense of 
the preceding declaration," which every impartial 
person must suppose the Apostle himself could 
have done, had it been judged necessary. 

One of the novel canons of Biblical translation, 
broached by Professor Lee, is the principle, that 
instead of simply giving the plain and easy 
phraseology of Sacred Writ, translators may ex- 
press the sense of such phraseology in those 
terms which they may happen to find in lexico- 
graphers and commentators. Thus, p. 147. be- 
because Schleusner explains TrpovXafifidvzvOe, Rom, 
xiv. 1. by benigne et humaniter quoquo modo 
tractate, the translation i^JUy Jja* &i>) <— akl lutfile 
kabul eilun "receive courteously is therefore cor- 
rect," as if the Greek word were not sufficiently 
expressed by " receive" or take, which terms are, 
of course, susceptible of a stronger or weaker de~ 



268 

gree of acceptation, according to the connexion? 
in which they stand. Perhaps neither Schleusner 
nor the Professor would maintain, that the verb is 
to be taken " precisely" in the sense of courteous 
treatment, Matt. xvi. 22. Then Peter took him, 
(7rpo<j\<&oiizvoQ avrov) and began to rebuke him, &c. 
Thus again the addition Rom. xiv. 14. "I am 
persuaded by the teachings of the Lord Jesus," 
instead of "by the Lord Jesus (fa Kvpiat I^ov) is 
maintained to be accurately translated by AliBey, 
because this," according to " the commentators, 
is the true meaning of the passage." That is, 
because accurately commented, therefore, it is 
accurately translated ! 

We are farther told, p. 148, that Ali has correctly 
translated mv k\uv rouAavffi, " the key of David." 
Rev. iii. 7. by ^JJj&\ j^j c^aj beiti Dawud 
anachtarlari, " the keys of the house of David," 
because Drusius accounts for the ellipse, and 
Grotius says it means: " Plenissimum imperium 
in domo Dei!" It will be generally allowed, that 
in endeavouring to explain the passage, these two 
commentators were in their proper province : 
whether it be the province of a translator, is 
another question. 

All the other versions render the words, Rev. 
iii. 12. noirjau) avrov gtvXov: " I will make him a 
pillar in the temple of my God ;" but this figure 



269 

appearing rather too bold to Ali Bey, he inserted 
the word " like" — " I will make him like a pillar." 
In doing so, Professor Lee assures us, he does 
nothing " more than supply an ellipse, without 
which, even the original itself cannot be under- 
stood, and the Turkish would be perfect nonsense? 
p. 149. How this should be the case with the 
Turkish more than any other language, I am at a 
loss to discover ; but except my opponent ex- 
plain himself on this point, to the satisfaction of 
the public, they will, I fear, be inclined to accuse 
him of inconsistency in being so closely connected 
with an Institution, which, according to the doc- 
trine here taught, will scarcely be able to repel 
the charge of distributing perfect nonsense in up- 
wards of one hundred and thirty different lan- 
guages or dialects ! 

I shall relieve the reader from the long and 
severe penance to which he has been obliged to 
submit in going over these criticisms, after ad- 
verting to one additional instance of perverted 
Biblical taste. It was observed, Appeal, p. 47, 
that " an objectionable addition of frequent oc- 
currence, is the prefixing of the word <-Ju,£ 
' Sheriff J noble, excellent, sacred, &c. to certain 
substantives, which seemed to deserve, or to want 
the aid of this embellishing adjective. Thus 
Matt.xxvi.42. j^Jj) v^l^i d\j* ' thy sacred will 



270 

be done.' Mark i. 1. cJby£ JasjI 'the sacred 

Gospel.* Rom. i. 5. ^A^£ *J CX>\ ' His sacred 

name.' 1 John i. 7. «— ^ *i> 'precious blood/ &c>" 

The reader must judge, whether the reasons set 
up in defence of this liberty, be in any measure 
satisfactory. They are briefly these : First, "The 
taste of the Orientals differs very widely in this, 
as well as many other respects, from that of Dr. 
Henderson." Secondly : The objectionable word, 
and even the phrase IvtIiX azppify the sacred Gospel 
is found * in the Preface to the Turkish Psalter," 
published " by the Metropolitan of Angouri him- 
self;" from which it is concluded, that the 
practice of adding this word Sheriff, " is not con- 
fined to the Mohammedans, but is used by the 
highest authorities in the churches of Turkey." 
Remarks, p. 149. On all this I have simply to 
remark, that I believe, no very great difference 
of taste will be found to exist between Asiatics 
and Europeans, relative to the use of such 
phrases ; for I find our own translators making 
use of similar combinations, such as " God's sacred 
word," and " God's holy truth ;" but as they were 
merely combinations of their own, and not SiSciktoi 
TlvEVfiaTOQ, they only employ them in the Preface, 
not daring to introduce them within the thresh- 
hold of the divine text, In this they have the 



10 



271 

suffrage of all other Biblical translators, Ali Bey 
alone excepted ; and I feel rather confident, that 
mew strenuously soever Professor Lee has exerted 
himself to justify the innovation here reprobated, 
his cause will find but few abettors, and must 
indeed be held in abhorrence by all who would 
lay any claim to an influential reverence for 
the Word of God. 



CHAPTER XL 



Authorities in the Appendix. Neither British nor German 
Orientalists consulted. French Orientalists incompetent 
to give a Decision on Questions of this Nature. The 
Absurdity and total Inconclusiveness of their Opinions. 
The Opinion and Specimen of the Rev. Mr. Renouard 
noticed. Disingenuousness of Professor Lee in Regard to 
Ali Beys Version of the Old Testament. 

On turning to the Appendix subjoined to Pro- 
fessor Lee's Remarks, the first thing that must 
strike the reader, is the list it contains of not 
fewer than thirty -one Meetings of the General 
Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society, and of the Sub-Committee for Printing 
and General Purposes, in which the subject of 
the Turkish Testament is stated to have been 
brought under consideration. The effect designed 
to be produced by this list, and the exhibition of 
the names, some of them of great celebrity and 
respectability, of the persons to whose judgment 
the business was submitted, is the conviction, 
that it was proceeded in with that delay and 
caution which the nature of the case seemed to 
require ; and, that after so grave an inquiry had 
been instituted, and such numerous testimonies 
obtained in favour of the version of Ali Bey, the 



273 

Committee were fully justified in coming to the 
ultimate resolution, December 29, 1823, of re- 
moving the suspension which had partially 
arrested the circulation of the copies. 

All this is certainly exceedingly specious, and 
greatly calculated to soothe the mind of the public 
in general ; but to such as are more intimately ac- 
quainted with the real nature of the proceedings, 
or to those who have perused the preceding 
chapters of the present publication, it must ap- 
pear a most melancholy and mortifying considera- 
tion, that after so many meetings held, so many 
judges consulted, and so many inquiries insti- 
tuted, and after obtaining " the best information 
in their power," a result should be brought out so 
directly at variance with the real merits of the 
case. If, after all this investigation, and all this 
overwhelming mass of authorities, it appear, that 
the New Testament in question is still totally 
unfit for circulation by the Society, the fact must 
convince the public, at least, that the Committee 
ought no longer to put that exuberant faith in 
great names by which they have been misguided 
on the present occasion, and that measures of a 
very different nature must be resorted to, if they 
would secure the word of God against that cor- 
ruption to which it is exposed, in passing into 
new languages through the hands of erring and 
sinful men. 



274 

In consequence of a letter received from me in 
the spring of last year, " strongly censuring and 
condemning the Paris edition/' it is stated*, that 
a series of queries was drawn up and forwarded 
to " the learned Orientalists in France and else- 
where/' in order to obtain their opinion upon the 
subject. 

The reader will, perhaps, wonder why these 
queries were not particularly submitted to British 
Orientalists, and also to the Orientalists of Ger- 
many, the latter of whom have, more than any 
other scholars in this department in the present 
day, successfully applied Eastern learning to the 
illustration of the Sacred Volume, and are, there- 
fore, peculiarly qualified to give verdict in a 
question so purely theological as that under con- 
sideration. That these gentlemen have not been 
consulted, I conclude from the circumstance, 
that no documents from them appear among the 
authorities cited in the Appendix. 

When I stated in the Appeal, p. 65, that " to 
suppose Great Britain to be destitute of scholars 
capable of taking up the question, and fairly 
deciding upon its merits, would be to derogate 
from the honour of my country," I little imagined, 
that at that very moment steps were taking in 
regard to it, which tacitly implied, that no com- 

* Appendix, B and C. 



275 

petent British scholars were to be found, to whom 
reference could be made on the subject, And is 
it actually at last come to this? Is it possible 
that England which once could boast of a Walton, 
a Castell, an Usher, a Pocock, a Lightfoot, a 
Greaves, a Hyde, a Wheelock, a Clarke, a Loftus, 
and a Heath, who all flourished contemporane- 
ously, and are of universal and established repu- 
tation for their skill in Oriental literature, should 
not now possess one son, the solidity and extent 
of whose knowledge in Biblical and dialectical 
learning, can be depended on in such a case as 
the present ? Those were indeed the golden days 
of Oriental literature in England, in which there 
was no lack of men to employ in editing with due 
care and circumspection impressions of the Holy 
Scriptures, in any of the Eastern languages, or to 
whom an ultimate appeal might confidently be 
made on the subject of any new translation. 
But why should there be such a paucity in the 
present day? Is it impossible any longer to af- 
ford encouragement to men who devote their 
talents, and a great portion of their time, to the 
cultivation of such studies ? Or has a fatal 
apathy seized our schools and Universities? Do 
those who fill the situation of public teachers 
of religion no longer care to drink deep at the 
fountain of sacred lore, or excel in elucidating 
the sacred pages from the numerous and invalu- 

t 2 



276 

able Oriental sources, preserved in our public 
libraries ? Must foreigners (long may they be 
welcome) discover and publish to the world 
what lies within a step of our own salaried 
Professors ? 

I may be told, that British Scholars have been 
consulted on the subject of the Turkish Testa- 
ment; and the query has been put: "If Professor 
Lee and Mr. Renouard are bunglers, where, in 
Britain, are learned Orientalists to be found # ?" 
It appears, however, from the Appendix, that, 
much as the skill of these Gentlemen in such 
matters has been boasted of, their judgment was 
deemed insufficient to decide the point at issue, 
and accordingly its ultimate determination was 
made to rest upon the opinion of the French and 
some other foreign Orientalists, of inferior note. 
These authorities are : — 

M. le Baron Silvestre de Sacy. 
M. Jaubert, Second Interpreting Secretary to 
the King of France for the Oriental Lan- 
guages, Professor of the Turkish Language 
at the Royal Library of Paris, Author of a 
Turkish Grammar, and formerly in the ser- 
vice of the French Government in Turkey, 
Egypt, and Persia. 
M. Garcin De Tassy, Author of several Orien- 
tal Works, who has for some years devoted 

* Eclectic Review, June 1824, p. 535. 



277 

himself especially to the study of the Turkish 
Language. 
M. Langles, Conservator of Oriental MSS. in 

the Royal Library of Paris. 
M. Andrea de Nerciat, late Interpreter at Con- 
stantinople, and formerly in Syria and Persia. 
M. Caussin de Perceval the Younger, late In- 
terpreter at Constantinople, and in Syria, 
and now Professor of Modern Arabic at the 
Royal Library of Paris. 
M. Bianchi, one of the two Assistant Inter- 
preting Secretaries to the King of France 
for the Oriental Languages, and late Inter- 
preter at Smyrna. 
M. Desgranges, Assistant Interpreting Secretary 
to the King of France for the Oriental Lan- 
guages, Colleague of M. Bianchi. 
M. Petropolis, late Turkish Secretary to the 

Greek Patriarch. 
M. Eremian, Interpreter to the Danish Lega- 
tion at Constantinople. 
If high-sounding names and imposing profes- 
sional titles were adequate to command acqui- 
escence in the sentiments expressed on any 
literary topic, we have, certainly, in the present 
case, a superabundance of authority. And, per- 
haps, not a few will be disposed to give the 
Eclectic Reviewer* due credit for the following 

* Ut sup. 



278 

strong and pointed query in relation to it: "What 
but the intoxication of spleen or arrogance could 
lead a man to speak with contempt of the follow- 
ing individuals, to all of whom a series of ques- 
tions was submitted on the subject of the alleged 
errors in this version?" But how, it may be 
asked, in reply, could I possibly speak contemp- 
tuously of persons, most of whom I never knew to 
be in existence ; and with respect to the rest, I 
had no information before it was supplied by 
Professor Lee's Appendix, that they had had any 
such series of queries proposed for their consi- 
deration ? The charge proceeds upon the assump- 
tion of my perfect knowledge of what was going 
on relative to the whole affair ; whereas, in fact, I 
was kept completely in the dark ; nor did I ex- 
pect, after what had taken place, that any further 
communications would be made to me upon the 
subject. 

But why drag these individuals into public 
view, and expose their character by constituting 
them judges of what does not lie within their 
province; or supposing it did, whose daily official 
and multiform avocations prevent them from de- 
voting to it that share of their time and attention 
which a subject of such grave importance de- 
mands? Bring before their tribunal a question 
purely grammatical, or one relating to the history, 
the geography, the numismatology, the politics, 



279 

the diplomacy, or the poetry of the Orientals, 
and of Silvestre de Sacy, at least, it may con- 
fidently be affirmed, that he will give a decision 
worthy of such an accomplished scholar and so 
experienced a veteran in the field of Asiatic re- 
search. But to appeal to men of totally different 
habits of study, as umpires on the subject of 
Biblical translation; to call in the aid of their 
taste, which has been formed on totally different 
models, to fix the manner in which the esta- 
blished phraseology of Sacred Scripture should 
be expressed in the desecrated jargon of Moham- 
medan unbelievers; and to leave it to French 
Orientalists to determine points of theological 
inquiry, is just about as preposterous as it would 
have been, about fifty years ago, to solicit the 
advice of as many of the leading men in the 
British dependencies in the East, relative to the 
practicability, and the best mode of translating 
the Scriptures into the languages of India. 

Anticipating something like the result here re- 
ferred to, I observed in the Appeal *, that, ■* in order 
to qualify any man for passing a critical decision 
on the subject, it is requisite, not merely that he 
be versed in what may be termed the profane 
departments of Oriental literature, but that he be 
more or less disciplined in the established prin- 
ciples of Biblical science. His acquirements may 

* Pp. 64, 65. 



280 

have been amply sufficient to carry him through 
all the philological difficulties connected with a 
diplomatic or military career, and to procure for 
him a distinguished reputation in the field of 
Asiatic research, while, after all, he may be la- 
bouring under a complete destitution of the prin- 
ciples of sacred taste, and a most lamentable 
ignorance on subjects intimately connected with 
the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. I have 
heard of an Oriental scholar, who found fault with 
a translator of the New Testament, for rendering 
the word publican by ' tax-gatherer/ because, 
forsooth ! in colloquial English it signifies, an 
f inn-keeper /' To commit the decision of such 
points to gentlemen of purely secular habits, is 
just as preposterous as it would be to rest the 
merits of a question relative to naval or military 
tactics on the opinion of those who are simply 
addicted to objects of theological pursuit." 

But what is the amount of the evidence pro- 
duced from these Oriental authorities in the 
Appendix ? It was very judicious in Professor 
Lee not to lay them before the reader in an 
English translation ; but we shall presently fur- 
nish him with a few passages by way of speci- 
men, from which he will be able to form some 
idea of the spirit and tendency of the whole. 

The first document, and deservedly the most 
worthy of regard, is that from ML le Baron Sil- 



281 

vestre de Sacy. According to his own statement, 
however, the examination to which he submitted 
the version, was extremely limited; a circum- 
stance naturally to be expected from the vast 
multiplicity of business with which that distin- 
guished scholar is overloaded, partly by the 
offices of high trust and responsibility with which 
he is invested by his Royal Master, partly by an 
extensive correspondence carried on with literary 
societies and individuals in all parts of the world, 
and partly by his own private and favourite 
studies. The greater part of his communication 
is taken up with criticisms on certain passages in 
Ali Bey's version, some of which go to corroborate 
the objections which we made to particular ren- 
derings, and only prove what we might have ex- 
pected from M. le Baron, had he entered fully 
into the subject, and furnished us with a decision 
formed upqn proper rules of Biblical interpre- 
tation. 

The next authority is that of Professor Jaubert, 
who enters pretty fully into the question relative 
to the predominance of Arabic and Persic words 
in the version, but, like all the other individuals 
here referred to, avoids entering on any of the 
main points, with the exception of that relative 
to the circumlocutory and diversified manner in 
which the divine name is expressed. In addition 
to the quotation formerly given from his letter, 



282 

recommendatory of the adoption of the received 
forms of speech, as the most natural and proper 
by which to express the phraseology of Scripture, 
we shall only adduce here the following observa- 
tion : " Far from having incurred any censure, 
the author seems to deserve praise for having 
employed these forms (Court of Victory, Most 
High, &c.) ; without them his version would have 
appeared cold, monotonous, removed from the usual 
style of language, and consequently less proper to 
answer the end to be attained*" That the commu- 
tation of the established diction of the Spirit for 
the gaudy and varied combinations of the Otto- 
man style, is rather to be praised than condemned, 
is a sentiment in which I believe few will coincide; 
and I am also inclined to think, that those who 
relish the simple truth, and are acquainted with 
the sovereign energy with which it affects what 
the most elegant and finished specimens of human 
eloquence have never been able to accomplish, 
will be far from agreeing with M. Jaubert, when 
he affirms, that a version done in close imitation 
of the original, and rejecting these high-sounding 
epithets, would be cold and monotonous, and 
little fitted to answer the end to be attained. To 

* " Loin d'avoir encouru aucun blame, l'auteur parait meriter 
des eloges pour avoir employe ces formules ; sans elles sa 
version eut paru froide, monotone, eloignee du style usuel et 
par consequent peu propre a remplir le but qu'on voulait at- 
teindre." Appendix, p. (17). 



283 

unbelievers of all nations, the Scriptures must 
ever be expected to appear, more or less, in this 
light ; and it has been the constant endeavour of 
human wisdom to hide this supposed deformity, 
and render them palatable to the carnal mind. 
But the effect of all such attempts has only been 
to " daub the wall with untempered mortar," and 
adulterate the Word of God with the meretrici- 
ous embellishments of human folly. On this, as 
well as every other point connected with the 
Gospel of Christ, the declarations of Paul will be 
found to hold true : " The foolishness of God is 
wiser than men, and the weakness of God is 
stronger than men. For ye see your calling, 
brethren, how that not many wise men after the 
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are 
called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of 
the world to confound the wise ; and God hath 
chosen the weak things of the world to confound 
the things which are mighty ; and base things of 
the world, and things which are despised, hath 
God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to 
bring to nought things that are ; that no flesh 
should glory in his presence." 1 Cor. i. 25 — 29. 

The same remarks apply to the paper furnished 
by M. Garcin de Tassy. " The usage of the 
Orientals," says he, "is always to join to the name 
of God and of the prophets a form of benediction ; Ali 
Bey could not depart from it ; and, in my opinion, 



284 

he would have been greatly to blame, if he had 
lopped off these forms. It is said that they give 
to the Turkish New Testament a Mohammedan teint. 
So much the better. It would have been desirable that 
the teint had been still stronger: his version being 
destined for the special use of Mohammedans 
who are unhappily prejudiced against our sacred 
books, from the persuasion that we have al- 
tered them *." Such, reader, is the judgment of 
another of our French Orientalists on the subject 
of what he is pleased to call " slight additions," but 
which consist of words and phrases never be- 
fore introduced into the Holy Scriptures by any 
translator, either ancient or modern. From what 
is here stated, it is clear, that if the Turkish ver- 
sion had been put into the hands of this Gentle- 
man to prepare it for the Turks, we should have 
been favoured with it in the most perfect state of 
Musulman colouring, and dressed out in all the 
tawdriness of Ottoman bombast, instead of being 
put off with the mincing manner in which, after 

* " L'usage des Orientaux est de joindre toujours au nom de 
Dieu et des prophetes, une formule de benediction ; Ali Bey ne 
pouvait s'en ecarter et Ton aurait en grand tort, ce me semble, 
de retrancher ces formules. On dit qu'elles donnent au N. T. 
Turc une teinte Musulmane. Tant mieux. II serait a desirer 
que la teinte fut encore plus forte, cette traduction etant destinee 
specialement aux Musulmans qui malheureusement sont prevenus 
contre nos saints livres, persuades que nous les avons alteres." 
Append. (20). 



285 

all, it would seem poor Ali has executed his task* 
If the Oriental usage be to affix always a form of 
benediction to the name of God and the prophets, 
then certainly our translator has frequently been 
" guilty of a gross infraction of the laws of his 
language;" for, he has actually departed from 
that usage ; he has, in numberless instances, lopped 
off the objectionable forms ; and, in no instance, as 
far as I have found, does he join any form of bene- 
diction to the names of the prophets, understanding 
by that name Adam, Noah, Job, and others, to 
whom the Mohammedans give this character. 
What then does M. Garcin de Tassy mean, when 
he says that Ali Bey could not depart from such 
a practice? After perusing the present controversy, 
the religious public of Great Britain will doubt- 
less be of opinion, that a sufficiently strong teint 
of Mohammedanism has already been given to this 
ill-fated version, and few I believe will join the 
learned foreigner in the wish that the teint had 
been deeper and more conspicuous. 

We next come to a document from the late M. 
Langles, which chiefly relates to the use of Arabic 
and Persic words, and with which, therefore, I 
shall not detain the reader longer than while I 
place before him a Persian fact, adduced in justi- 
fication of the use of ei^-a*- Hcezret, " Illustrious." 
" In regard," he says, " to the epithet Hazret 
ciya^ which is given to Jesus Christ, ,5^ ui>.*o>. 



286 

it is so consecrated, that a Persian Ambassador 
or Envoy, Myr Daoud Khan, to whom I gave the 
title of Hazret, replied, ' that word is never used 
of any but Jesus' **' It may safely be affirmed, 
that a more barefaced falsehood never issued from 
the lips of any of the Persian race. ; Yet, 3VL 
Langles writes, and Professor Lee publishes this 
hollow piece of flattery as evidence in favour of 
Ali Bey's Testament, although this same Testa- 
ment convicts the witness of untruth ; the word 
Hcezret being, as we have seen, applied in the 
very first chapter to the Virgin Mary, and after- 
wards to Abraham and Solomon ! 

An extract from the communication of M. An- 
drea de Nerciat has already been laid before the 
reader. I shall here insert the passage more at 
length : " I cannot by any means regard as a fault 
the variety of expressions employed to render the 
Divinity, because this variety is not so great as to 
become a fatigue, even to the grossest intellect. 
With respect to the honorific epithets which ac- 
company the name of our Lord, nothing but ig- 
norance of the religious spirit of the Orientals in 
general, can render it possible for us, not to feel 

* " Quant a l'epithete de Hazret L2J y Ju>. qu'il donne a Jesus 
Christ, -wjJ^c OJ>, elle est tellement consacree, qu'un am- 
bassadeur ou envoy ee Persan, Myr Daoud Khan, a qui je donnais 
le titre de Hazret, me repondit, ' On n'emploie ce mot-la que 
pour Jesus.'" Append. (22). 



287 

the enormous want of decency of which we should 
be guilty, in pronouncing this sacred name in a 
cold dry manner ; and as our preachers never ex- 
press it without taking off their cap, in like manner 
the Orientals cannot write or articulate it, without 
prefixing the word cuyb* (Hcezret), or accom- 
panying it with the epithets ^iiU >viJ,lju i { j*>-j 
JUS (Merciful, Blessed, Sacred, Most High) and 
a thousand others, derived from the infinitude of 
the perfections which emanate from his Divine 
Essence. In this respect, usage has removed 
every difficulty in the East. It is the style of the 
p? % iests when they instruct the people from the 
pulpit *." 

• " Je ne saurais non plus regarder comme une vice la variete 
d'expressions employees pour rendre la Divinite, parceque cette 
variete n'est tellement grande, qu'elle devienne une fatigue meme 
pour l'mtelligence la plus materielle. Quant aux epithetes hono- 
rifiques qui accompagnent le nom de Notre Seigneur, il faudrait 
ne point connaitre l'esprit religieux des peuples Orientaux en 
general, pour ne point sentir l'enormite de l'inconvenance que Ton 
commettrait, en prononcant tout sechement ce nom sacre ^ et ainsi 
que nos predicateurs ne le prof erent jamais sans oter jusqu' a leur 
calotte, de meme les Orientaux ne sauraient Fecrire ou l'articuler, 
sans le fair preceder du mot CJ-^os^, ou sans le faire suivre des 
epithetes de JU? j-^jJU 5 CJ.U^o 9 ii /^i et milles autres, qui 
naissent de l'infinite de perfections qui emanent de sa Divine 
Essence. Et cet egard, l'usage a leve toute difficulte dans l'Orient. 
C'est le style des pretres qui enseignent le peuple du haut de la 
chaire evangelique " Append, p. (23). 

13 



288 

The testimonies of M. Caussin de Perceval and 
M. Bianchi are to the same effect, all agreeing 
most unanimously in their avowal, that these epi- 
thets cannot be omitted without irreverence ; and 
the evidence is concluded by M. Desgranges in 
the following style : " It is further complained, 
that the names of God and Christ are embellished 
by different epithets, and rendered by several 
circumlocutions. I avow that the charge is well- 
founded, and that these epithets, and these circumlo- 
cutions are not found in the original: but the author 
of the translation wished thereby to conform to 
the custom of all the Oriental Christians, for it 
would be as extraordinary not to say in Turkish 
or Arabic, his excellency Jesus, as it would 
be singular to use such an expression among us. 

" To conclude, I am of opinion, that the greater 
part of the faults charged upon Ali Bey's Turkish 
version of the New Testament, do not exist, and 
if they did, the work would not, on this account, 
be less worthy of high recommendation, and fit to 
spread the knowledge of sacred Scripture in the 
East*." 

* " On se plaint encore de voir les noms de Dieu et de Jesus 
ornes de differentes epithetes et rendus par plusieurs circonlocu- 
tions. J'avoue que le reproche est fonde, et que ces epithetes, et 
ces circonlocutions ne se trouvent pas dans l'original : mais par la 
l'auteur de la traduction a voulu se conformer a la coutume de 
tous les Chretiens Orientaux, car il serait aussi extraordinaire de 



289 

Not to advert to the criticisms of Messrs, 
Eremian and Petropolis, which appear to have 
been altogether unfit to meet the eye of the pub- 
lic, and of which, therefore, only some garbled 
notice is given in the Appendix, I would now 
simply ask the judicious Scripture critic, and all 
who are sensible of the importance of " holding 
fast the form of sound words," whether any con- 
fidence can be placed in the judgment of men 
who can avow such sentiments as the above on 
the subject of Biblical translation ? If they admit 
of, and defend such liberties with " the oracles 
of God/' of what avail is their testimony to the 
version of Ali Bey, as possessing " scrupulous 
fidelity," being done with " exactitude ;" that it 
is " an excellent translation ;" " a production 
equally serviceable to literature and religion," 
&c, &c. These expressions are all merely relative, 
and must be interpreted agreeably to the capa- 
bilities of those who use them, and their acquaint- 
ance with the subject to which they are applied. 

On the letters of the Rev. G. C. Renouard, I 

ne pas dire en Turc ou en Arabe, son Excellence Jesus, qu'il serait 
singulier de s'exprimer ainsi parmi nous. 

" En dernier resultat, je pense qui la pluspart des fautes re- 
proches a la version Turque d'Ali Bey du Nouveau Testament, 
n'existent pas, et que si elles existaient, cet ouvrage n'en serait 
pas moins tres recommandable et propre a repandre dans l'Orient 
la connaissance de l'Ecriture Sainte," Append, p. (29). 

U 



290 

would only remark, that some of the statements 
they contain have already been refuted in pre- 
ceding parts of this work. With respect to the 
rest, it is unnecessary to offer any comment upon 
them, as they clearly go to support my side of 
the question, and shew what developements 
would have been made by the learned Rector, if 
he had only entered sufficiently into the subject. 
He admits the use of the objectionable epithets, 
and acknowledges, that " the objections grounded 
on the introduction of unusual words, when more 
common ones might have been used, are not 
entirely unfounded;" that " Persian words are, per- 
haps, too often introduced, but that was the fashion 
in All Bey's time, and the Insha's or Formularies 
for letters, &c. of that age, are now considered 
as improper models of style, solely because they 
abound in phrases borrowed from the Persian ; 
and that it also appears true, that a greater variety 
of words to express the same idea, has been used by 
the translator than by the original writers V : 

On the specimens of translation, extracted from 
Ali Bey by that gentleman, I shall only observe, 
that any person who will take the trouble to com- 
pare them, either with the original Greek, or our 
own authorised version, must at once perceive the 
numerous discrepancies and the absolutely false 

* Appendix, pp. (30, 31.) 



291 

renderings with which they abound. Of these, the 
following are adduced in proof: Matt.xi.6. " How 
blessed is he who doublet h not in me." Mark viii. 
33. " Thou hast not perceived the things which 
pertain to God, but perceivest the things which 
pertain to man." xii. 32. " Thou hast well said 
that God is one' 1 34. " Kingdom of heaven." 
xvi. 6. " Ye are seeking Jesus of Nazareth who 
was crucified but hath been brought to life; he is 
not here." Ver. 7. Go, " tell Peter and his dis- 
ciples" Rom. iv. 20, 21, 22. " Gave praise and 
glory to Almighty God" " And he knew certainly 
that the Lord of Truth is able to perform the pro- 
mise which he hath made. Therefore was his 
faith counted in the place of righteousness." ix. 11. 
" The fore-ordained decree of Almighty God" Gal. 
ii. 19. " For by the law, I was dead unto the 
law, until I lived unto the Most High God" 20. 
1 was crucified, and am living with Christ. And 
now / am living that life which / have lived in the 
body." 21. " If it be by the righteousness and 
strength of the law/' &c. Ephes. i. 4. " As he 
elected us (in him omitted) before the foundation 
of the world." I now leave it with the reader to 
form his own opinion respecting Mr. Renouard's 
prefatory remarks. " I hope the short extracts 
which I now add, will serve at least to shew that 
Ali Bey was tolerably faithful. I scarcely ever 
looked at the Greek, because my object was 

u2 



292 

to ascertain the meaning of the Turkish, but 
when I did, I had occasion to admire Ali Bey's 
exactness*." 



At the close of his Appendix, Professor Lee in- 
troduces a specimen of the manner in which he 
wishes to make the reader believe Ali Bey exe- 
cuted his translation of the Old Testament ; but I 
am sorry in being obliged to say, that in so doing- 
he is not only guilty of a gross misrepresentation 
of the real state of the case, but of an act of great 
injustice towards me, and the most shameful im- 
position on the public. " As Dr. Henderson," 
says he, " has thought proper to throw out some 
insinuations, (p. 19.) prejudicial to the character of 
Ali Bey's translation of the Old Testament, I have 
thought it might not be amiss to give, in this 
place, a literal translation of a very important part 
of the Book of Genesis, which may, in some de- 
gree, enable the reader to form an opinion on that 
part of the translation." 

Would it not be supposed from this advertise- 
ment, that what follows is a literal translation of 
the Turkish version as it came from the hands of 
Ali Bey, and, consequently, that it was a manifest 
calumny in me to insinuate, that a translation so 
simple, and, on the whole, so accurate as that 
exhibited by the Professor, could possibly contain 
* Appendix, p. (33.) 



293 

any such faults as those imputed to it ? But 
what will the reader say, when he is informed, 
that this specimen is not done either from Ali 
Bey's MS. or the edition of the Pentateuch, 
printed at Berlin, but from the text as corrected 
by Professor Kieffer, agreeably to the following 
resolution of the Sub-Committee for Printing and 
General Purposes, held August 9, 1821. 

" That in preparing the copy for the press, he 
(Professor KiefFer) begin with the Old Testament, 
and purify the text of every thing extrane- 
ous or supplementary, as far as the genius 
of the Turkish language will admit." 

What influence my insinuations, as Professor 
Lee is pleased to call them, had in bringing about 
this resolution, I pretend not to determine ; but 
it must appear, to every candid and impartial 
mind, to be in the highest degree unfair, to pro- 
duce as evidence against me, not the text on 
which I animadverted, but one to the purity of 
which these very animadversions, made in 1820, 
materially contributed. Neither is it equitable 
to transfer to Ali Bey the meed of praise which is 
due to Professor KiefFer by whom the version has 
been at last brought into some degree of con- 
sistency with other translations of the Word of 
God. That the reader may be able to form some 
idea of the difference between the style of the 
third chapter of Genesis, as exhibited by Pro- 
fessor Lee, and that of Ali Bey as he appears 



294 

in the Berlin Pentateuch, I subjoin the following 
collation of the manner in which the Divine 
Names are given. 

The Version of All Bey as The Text as corrected by 
contained in the Berlin Professor Kieffer, and 

Pentateuch. exhibited by Prof. Lee* 

1. Tengri God Most High. 1. Lord God. 

Supreme Creator. God. 

3. Court of the Creator. 3. God. 

5. Supreme Creator. 5. God. 

Like Angels. Like gods. 

8. The Creator God Most High . 8. Lord God. 
Tengri God Most High. Lord God. 

9. Tengri God Most High. 9. Lord God. 
II. The Court of Victory. 11. God. 

13. Tengri God Most High. 13. Lord God. 

Prof. Lee, Lord. 
24. Tengri God Most High. 14. Lord God. 

If the renderings " Court of the Creator" and 
" Court of Victory" should be called in question 
by any Oriental scholar, I must beg him to re- 
collect, that they are those contended for by 
Professor Lee, but for which circumstance, I 
should have translated the original words by 
" Glorious Creator," and "Glorious Majesty," as 
I have already, in part, done in the Appeal. 



CONCLUSION. 



If we take a review of the points discussed in 
the preceding chapters, it will appear, that the 
question at issue is not, whether the version of 
Ali Bey may not be corrected, nor whether a 
diversity of opinion may not obtain respecting 
the rendering of particular passages, such as may 
exist relative to every other version ; neither is it 
contended, that the Paris edition of the New 
Testament should be suppressed on account of 
each blunder it contains, taken singly, as Pro- 
fessor Lee perpetually insinuates : but it is this, 
whether it be warrantable in the Bible Society to 
give circulation to a work exhibiting a manifest 
relinquishment of those forms of Jewish and Chris- 
tian phraseology, which have acquired an esta- 
blished and classical authority in all public 
translations besides, and whether the critical 
principles, on which its defence is undertaken, 
be entitled to admission not merely in reference 
to this individual version, but in their application 



296 

to Biblical translations in general, and more 
especially to such as are prepared for the first 
time in the languages of Mohammedan and 
Pagan nations ? 

While Professor Lee maintains, that, in trans- 
lations of the Sacred Scriptures, the phraseology 
of the originals must be rendered by that in use 
among the people for whom they are designed, it 
has, on the contrary, been shewn, that such a 
principle would completely mould the forms of 
divine speech in accommodation to individual 
fancy and conceit, and bring it into accordance 
with such prevailing phraseology as has origi- 
nated in, and is expressive of, the different ideas 
of idolatry, superstition, or unbelief, which obtain 
in the unevangelized world. It must, therefore, 
be pernicious in the extreme, to recommend the 
free or liberal mode of translation, which, although 
it professedly furnishes a faithful representation 
of the sense, gives an uncontrollable licence to 
the translator, and departs widely, and, in num- 
berless instances, entirely, from the style and 
manner of the original. The authorities of Jerome 
and Dathe, produced in support of the free hypo- 
thesis, have been proved to be totally irrelative 
to the subject ; and some rules have been laid 
down with a view to determine the manner in 
which every version of the Holy Scriptures, de- 
signed for popular use, ought to be executed. 



207 

The different charges of mistakes, respecting 
the meaning of Oriental words preferred against 
me by the Professor, have been repelled by an 
appeal to unexceptionable lexicographical au- 
thorities, to the usage of Ali Bey, and to the 
manner in which the words have been rendered 
by himself and the French Orientalists in his 
Appendix. In defending the translations found in 
the Appeal, it has been shewn, that the accepta- 
tions given to the words by my opponent, so far 
from rendering their use less objectionable, tends 
most forcibly to prove their total inadmissability 
into versions of the Sacred Scriptures. 

The arguments adduced by Professor Lee, in 
defence of the varied and high-sounding adsciti- 
tious epithets given by Ali Bey to the Deity, 
have been demonstrated to be absurd in them- 
selves, and fraught with consequences to be de- 
precated by all who entertain a sacred reverence 
for the Word of God. His reference to Scripture 
usage, the style of Mohammedan books, and the 
practice of the Christians in Turkey, is shewn to 
be false or inconclusive; and the use of these 
circumlocutory titles is proved to be incapable of 
vindication, from the inconsistencies of Ali Bey's 
own practice, from that of the Professor in editing 
versions in other languages for the use of Moham- 
medans, and, especially, from the fact, that, in 
preparing the text of the Old Testament for the 



298 

press, Professor Kieffer is purifying it from this 
foreign gibberish, in direct opposition to the 
opinions avowed in the Remarks. Nor must it be 
forgotten, that although Professor Lee finds it 
convenient to advocate the use of these titles in 
the New Testament, because its publication "has 
been attended with so much labour and expense */' 
he was, nevertheless, one of those who assisted 
the Sub-Committee of the Bible Society with 
his advice on the memorable 9th of August, 1821, 
in consequence of which it was resolved to "purify 
the text of the Old Testament of every thing extrane- 
ous or supplementary, as far as the genius of the 
Turkish language would admit." Could any thing 
be more perfectly inconsistent than seriously to 
undertake the defence of what he had thus 
pointedly assisted in condemning ? And was it not 
highly disingenuous to endeavour to turn my ob- 
jections into ridicule, at the very moment it must 
have been known to himself and the Committee, 
that these objections had attained their end in so 
far as the Old Testament was concerned, and that 
this portion, at least, of Sacred Writ, was now 
printing in a style agreeable to the principles 
laid down in my Appeal ? 

The charges relative to the annihilation of cer- 
tain proofs of the Divinity of Christ, have been 

* Remarks, p. 23. 



299 

fully substantiated in opposition to the assump- 
tions and reasonings by which Professor Lee has 
attempted to invalidate them. I have here proved 
that his assertions are entirely destitute of foun- 
dation, and shewn, by reference to acknowledged 
native authorities, that the Arabic word Cj. Rabb, 
" Lord," is not exclusively applied to God, as he 
contends, but is also used in application to merely 
human masters. I have also pointed out in what 
manner the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity is 
affected by the interchange of the words God 
and Lord, a fault of serious import and of frequent 
occurrence in the version of Ali Bey. 

The important distinction between all or c)\ Halt 
" a god," and <xftl Allah, "God," has been esta- 
blished by the suffrage of the lexicons, the Koran, 
Ali Bey himself, the Christian translators, and 
Professor Kieffer ; in consequence of which, Ali's 
rendering of Rom. ix. 5. is shewn to be decidedly 
Socinian. In weighing the authority of Professor 
Kieffer, it must be remembered, that as it was 
recommended to him by the Committee, " before 
coming to a final decision respecting doubtful 
or difficult cases, to consult Baron Silvestre de 
Sacy, and correspond with Professor Lee," there 
is every reason to presume, that his changing oil) 
Hah into all! Allah, was not done without the ad- 
vice of that eminent Orientalist, although our 



300 

Cambridge Professor tells us in a note, p. 108, 
that he believes the alteration was unnecessary. 

It has been further shewn, that the positions 
assumed in the Remarks, in defence of the use of 
synonymic combinations, have either no bearing 
at all on the subject, or are perfectly untenable; 
and under this head, a charge has been fully made 
out against certain renderings in the version of 
AH Bey, which go to subvert the doctrine of justi- 
fication by faith alone, and loosen the bands of 
moral obligation. 

Particular attention has been paid to Professor 
Lee's vindication of the various instances of false 
translation alleged against Ali Bey, and arguments 
have been advanced in refutation of it, which, it is 
hoped, will prove satisfactory to every one com- 
petent to judge on such subjects. Having set out 
with the principle, that the Turkish version " con- 
tains no passage, which can fairly be construed as 
opposed to the mind of the Holy Ghost, or sub- 
versive of any Christian doctrine *," the Professor 
was bound to put forth the whole of his strength 
to save such parts of it as had been attacked ; and, 
I must do him the justice to say, that he has 
not spared himself any trouble in endeavour- 
ing to defend even those which he felt himself 

* Remarks, p. 17. 



301 

after all, obliged to give up as incapable of justi- 
fication. 

The principles on which the " Omissions and 
Additions" are vindicated, will, it has been pre- 
sumed, be repudiated by all who possess the 
smallest share of acquaintance with the art of 
criticism. With the exception of a single in- 
stance, the Professor's reference to Greek ma- 
nuscripts has been shewn to consist in misrepre- 
sentation; — the fruit of that carelessness of in- 
quiry, and want of accurate attention to the 
minutiae of circumstances connected with his 
arguments, of which numerous specimens occur 
in the Remarks. 

To conclude; the Paris edition of Ali Bey's 
Turkish New Testament is not only chargeable 
with most of the errors and faults adduced in the 
Appeal, even after several leaves have been can- 
celled, and a table of errata prepared, but the dis- 
cussion to which it has given rise, has indirectly 
brought to light other errors scarcely less objec- 
tionable; and it may confidently be maintained, 
that, if it were to be carefully examined from be- 
ginning to end, and all the departures both from 
the sense and manner of the original, carefully 
noted down, the results of such an investigation 
would fill a volume of no ordinary dimensions, 
and present to the view of the reader a pile of 



302 

discrepancies, with which even the Socinian New 
Testament (some of the grosser errors abated,) 
would sink in the comparison. 

And can the Committee of the British and 
Foreign Bible Society possibly be determined to 
persevere in circulating such a production as part 
of the pure word of God ? Can they be willing to 
risk the reputation of the Institution, its effective 
influence, and the enjoyment of the Divine bless- 
ing on its operations, by pursuing a line of con- 
duct which must tacitly imply their adoption of 
Professor Lee's lax and licentious principles of 
Biblical translation, and inspire the public with 
the belief, that they are resolved to give their 
sanction to versions executed agreeably to the 
advice tendered by that gentleman and the French 
literati, how contrary soever their opinions may 
be to sacred criticism, and the established rules 
of Biblical interpretation ? Except they publicly 
rescind their resolutions, and totally suppress the 
circulation of the remaining copies of the obnox- 
ious edition, such must inevitably prove the re- 
sult—a result, which no one will deprecate more 
highly than the individual who first called their 
attention to the subject; the sincere desire of 
whose heart is in unison with that of the Apostle 
Paul, when he thus addressed the church at Co- 
rinth: Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not 

12 



303 

that we should appear approved, but that ye should do 
that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. For 
we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. 
For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong, 
and this also we wish, even your perfection. 



APPENDIX. 



Just as the last proof sheet is passing through my hands, 
I am favoured with a copy of the twenty-first Report of 
the British and Foreign Bible Society, in the Appendix to 
which is the following remarkable passage, p. 73. 

" I would therefore suggest to the Committee the ex- 
pediency of authorizing the Professor (Prof. KiefFer) to 
have two thousand extra copies of the (Turkish) New Tes- 
tament struck off, because this edition, after having under- 
gone so much criticism and revision, will doubtless be supe- 
rior to the first in many respects. 

" The Professor is very desirous of rendering the work 
as perfect as possible, and spares no labour to attain this 
desirable object. At the same time, he feels its infinite 
importance and his own deep responsibility as editor. 
These two considerations make him diffident ; and, on this 
account, he has expressed a wish to -me, that the Commit- 
tee would request the Rev. Mr. Renouard carefully to 
peruse the Epistles, with the view, not to amend the style, 
but to render them as accurate and conformable to the 
original as possible. Should he be able to read the four 
Gospels and the Acts also, it would be desirable." 



306 

In reference to what is contained in this extract, I sim- 
ply propose the following queries : 

First, Are the copies of the disputed Edition still cir- 
culated? And, are they nearly all disposed of? Where 
have they been distributed ? And, who have received 
them? 

Secondly, Is the demand for copies of the Turkish New 
Testament so great as to call for the additional two 
thousand ? 

Thirdly, Is it not directly implied, that the version of 
Ali Bey, was, in many respects, an inferior edition, pre- 
vious to the " much criticism and revision," which it has 
already undergone, or may yet undergo from Mr. Re- 
nouard ? 

Fourthly, What is meant by the restrictive clause, 
" not to amend the style ?" Mr. Renouard avers, that 
what was the fashion in Ali Bey's time, is now considered 
as an improper model of style ; yet, he is " not to amend" 
it ! Is it not evident, by the Committee's acceding to this 
proposition, that the New Edition will contain Lady Mary, 
His Majesty Jesus, Court of Victory, Sweet-meats 
of Omnipotence, &c. &c. &c. just as the former did ? Will 
the Members of the British and Foreign Bible Society 
really tolerate this ? I add no more. If the eyes of the 
public are not opened to discover the perfect incongruity 
of giving circulation to a book composed in such a style, 
under the character of the simple word of God, I must 
for ever despair of removing the film. 

THE END. 



Printed by R. Gilbert, St. John's Square, London. 





ERRATA. 


J 11, 

18, 
121, 


line 22, 
9> 
3, 


read 


quotations 
will raoZ 
as 


139, 
152, 


26, 
1, 




represents 

observation 

Mevelation 

translators' 

Brunton. 


184, 
202, 

219, 
222, 


19, 

8, 
17, 

6, 
• 4, 





BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 

1. AN EXPOSITION of such of the PROPHECIES of 
DANIEL, as receive their Accomplishment under the New 
Testament ; together with a Comparison between them and the 
Apocalypse, as explained by the late Dr. Bengelius. By the 
late Rev. Magnus Fred. Roos, A. M. Superintendent and Pre- 
late in Lustnau and Anhausen. Translated from the German. 
8vo. Edinburgh. 1811. 

2. A DISSERTATION on HANS MIKKELSEN'S (or 
the first Danish) TRANSLATION of the NEW TESTA- 
MENT. 4to. Copenhagen. 1813. 

3. ICELAND ; or the Journal of a Residence in that Island 
during the Years 1814 and 1815; containing Observations on 
the Natural Phenomena, History, Literature, and Antiquities of 
the Island ; and the Religion, Character, Manners, and Cus- 
toms of its Inhabitants. With an Introduction and Appendix. 
Illustrated with a Map and Engravings. Second Edition. 
Edinburgh : Printed for Waugh and Innes, Hunter Square ; 
and T. Hamilton, J. Hatchard, and L. B. Seeley, London. 
Price 16s. boards. 1819. 

4. An APPEAL to the MEMBERS of the BRITISH and 
FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, on the Subject of the Turkish 
New Testament, printed at Paris in 1819 : containing a View 
of its History, an Exposure of its Errors, and palpable Proofs 
of the Necessity of its Suppression. London: Printed for B. J. 
Holdsworth, 18, St. Paul's Church-Yard. Price 3s. 1824. 



PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION. 

1. THE INSTITUTES of BIBLICAL TRANSLATION. 

In Three Parts. Part I. On the Qualifications of Translators. 
Part II. Helps for facilitating the Translation of the Sacred 
Scriptures. Part III. Canons of Biblical Translation. The 
whole illustrated by numerous examples from the Ancient Ver- 
sions and Modern Translations, and interspersed with Remarks, 
Critical, Philological, and Bibliographical. 

2. BIBLICAL RESEARCHES and TRAVELS in RUSSIA, 

including a Tour in the Crimea, and the Passage of the Caucasus. 

13 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






014 396 803 



#%§ 



~j***m- 






M ■ -.^iP" 



*£*■ 



